The Syria Thread: Everything you wanted to know or say about it

Merge the Syria Threads

  • Yes

    Votes: 4 66.7%
  • Yes

    Votes: 2 33.3%
  • Yes

    Votes: 2 33.3%
  • No

    Votes: 2 33.3%

  • Total voters
    6

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
55,430
6,996
113
Washington DC
Op-ed from the Washington Post. Lots of blather. Here's the key paragraph. . .


The United States should be using its own resources to determine, as quickly as possible, whether the opposition’s reports of large-scale use of gas against civilians are accurate. If they are, Mr. Obama should deliver on his vow not to tolerate such crimes — by ordering direct U.S. retaliation against the Syrian military forces responsible and by adopting a plan to protect civilians in southern Syria with a no-fly zone.

Syrian attack should prompt U.S. investigation into chemical weapons - The Washington Post


Question: Why should the U.S. act? What business is it of ours? And let's say we do act, and our actions prove to be the deciding factor in the Syrian civil war. What then? What assurances do we have that the subsequent government will be democratic or respect our notions of human rights (such as they are)?
 

captain morgan

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 28, 2009
28,429
146
63
A Mouse Once Bit My Sister
Re: "The U.S. Should Act"

Question: Why should the U.S. act? What business is it of ours? And let's say we do act, and our actions prove to be the deciding factor in the Syrian civil war. What then? What assurances do we have that the subsequent government will be democratic or respect our notions of human rights (such as they are)?


The only acceptable actions from a foreign nation will involve trade sanctions and/or withholding financial resources. Adopting this kind of policy in conjunction with other nations will have the impact they want.
 

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
55,430
6,996
113
Washington DC
Re: "The U.S. Should Act"

The only acceptable actions from a foreign nation will involve trade sanctions and/or withholding financial resources. Adopting this kind of policy in conjunction with other nations will have the impact they want.
Good idea. That way we can make sure that no matter who wins, they inherit a non-functional human tragedy.
 

SLM

The Velvet Hammer
Mar 5, 2011
29,151
3
36
London, Ontario
Re: "The U.S. Should Act"

The only acceptable actions from a foreign nation will involve trade sanctions and/or withholding financial resources. Adopting this kind of policy in conjunction with other nations will have the impact they want.

Ideally, yes. But the question still has to be asked doesn't it? Because what it boils down to, I believe, is the difference between intervention and interference.

I see it as analogous to this. If you or I walk into our neighbours home and begin to dictate how they conduct their lives, that's interference. But if our neighbour beats his wife and we report him or give shelter to the abused spouse that's intervention. In either scenario, it's really not our business what goes on in our neighbour's home but there may be certain times/situations when we should make it our business.

Not to say that looking at things on an international scale is this simple, it's not. And that's not even to say that intervention is always the best course of action. But I think the same principles are there and the issues need to be addressed.
 

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
55,430
6,996
113
Washington DC
Re: "The U.S. Should Act"

Way I see it, this is the Syrians' problem.

If there's international intervention, it should come from the Arab League.

Or possibly the UN.

But unilateral U.S. action? Seriously? What was the definition of "insanity" again?
 

captain morgan

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 28, 2009
28,429
146
63
A Mouse Once Bit My Sister
Re: "The U.S. Should Act"

Ideally, yes. But the question still has to be asked doesn't it? Because what it boils down to, I believe, is the difference between intervention and interference.

I see it as analogous to this. If you or I walk into our neighbours home and begin to dictate how they conduct their lives, that's interference. But if our neighbour beats his wife and we report him or give shelter to the abused spouse that's intervention. In either scenario, it's really not our business what goes on in our neighbour's home but there may be certain times/situations when we should make it our business.

Not to say that looking at things on an international scale is this simple, it's not. And that's not even to say that intervention is always the best course of action. But I think the same principles are there and the issues need to be addressed.

I am right behind you in this suggestion, however, there does come the point where something (interference) does have to happen. Some circumstances left unchecked will simply result in tragic consequences.

Ideally, that action should be taken by the people themselves (the abused wife in your example) and to that end, the support should be provided.

Way I see it, this is the Syrians' problem.

You're right; this is exclusively Syria's problem and the best go-forward solution (in terms of outside influence) will have to originate from the Arab League (can't stand the UN - they are as useless as teats on a bull)


But unilateral U.S. action? Seriously? What was the definition of "insanity" again?

I believe that if the USA were to poke their nose into this mess, there would be no lack of extremist factions willing to interpret it as America exerting their will over their (fill in the blank). Some for of retaliation would be inevitable at the cost of American lives and resources
 

SLM

The Velvet Hammer
Mar 5, 2011
29,151
3
36
London, Ontario
Re: "The U.S. Should Act"

Way I see it, this is the Syrians' problem.

Be that as it may, it doesn't mean we shouldn't concern ourselves with it.

If there's international intervention, it should come from the Arab League.

Or possibly the UN.
And if they don't? Too bad, so sad?


I am right behind you in this suggestion, however, there does come the point where something (interference) does have to happen. Some circumstances left unchecked will simply result in tragic consequences.

Ideally, that action should be taken by the people themselves (the abused wife in your example) and to that end, the support should be provided.

Absolutely. But if we lived in an ideal world, we wouldn't have these problems in the first place.

I don't actually think a unilateral action on the part of the U.S. or any government is a good idea in any circumstance. As you mentioned yourself, the perception of the reasons behind a U.S. intervention, particularly in that region, has to impact the end decision in a major way. But absolutely should many nations be wielding whatever power and influence they may hold to try to help the situation in any way they can. And, given failure to succeed doing that, I personally don't have a problem with armed intervention from a coalition of nations.
 

captain morgan

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 28, 2009
28,429
146
63
A Mouse Once Bit My Sister
Re: "The U.S. Should Act"

If by "we" you mean Canada, knock your socks off.


Maybe Canada should intervene. The U.S. shouldn't.

I'll make the arrangements to send over a few minor league hockey teams.... They can goon-it-up with little more lost than a few teeth and stitches.

I figure they time frame would be equivalent of a weekend tourney - we ought to have this thing buttoned-up within a few days
 

Omicron

Privy Council
Jul 28, 2010
1,694
3
38
Vancouver
Re: "The U.S. Should Act"

Way I see it, this is the Syrians' problem.

If there's international intervention, it should come from the Arab League.

Or possibly the UN.

But unilateral U.S. action? Seriously? What was the definition of "insanity" again?

Articles like that make it sound like Americans have become so accustomed to moving unilaterally - ever since George W. chose to ignore the UN and attack Iraq - that they've forgotten the UN exists, but actually Washington is very away of the UN, because it's through the UN that Russia has been blocking any notion of UN action against the Assad regime.

In any case, unilateral, overt action against the Assads would be way too risky, because of how seriously Russia is invested in Syria and the Assad dynasty, so yeah, it would be insane.

The Assad dynasty has enjoyed cozy relations with Russia for four generations, and Syria is Russia's closest Mediteranian partner.

Under the Soviet system, Syria provided the USSR with its only Mediteranian naval base, at Tartus, and since the collapse of the Soviet system, Russia has been expanding and *upgrading* that base. Moscow sees the Tartus base in the same light as the so-called "eternal bases" that Cheny pushed for in Iraq.

Today's Russia is so intent on preserving its position in Syria that they forgave Syria $9.8 billion of its $13.4 Soviet-era debt. Russia has big Syrian investments through natural gas processor Stroitransgaz, drilling and pipeline manager Tatneft, steel pipe manufacturer TMK, gas producer ITERA, and national carrier Aeroflot.

It would be very, very hard to do an attack on Syria without hitting a Russian investment. How does Washington react when a foriegn power damages her overseas investments?

The only glimmer of hope is that Russian diplomats have started suggested that *maybe* it's time for a leadership-change in Syria... not so much an overthrow of the Assad dynasty, but a change to which branch of the Assad family is running things.

Therefore, about all you can do without stepping on the bear's paw is pretty-much what's already being done, which is keep up pressure on the Assadians through cold-war style sneaking of ordinance to the rebels.

What I would add to that would be diplomatic level encouragement and support of Russia *if* she will use her clout to influence a regime change in Syria.

So-what if Russia gets kudos for brokering a peaceful settlement in Syria? She's not abandoning Syria anyway, so might as well encourage and support her if she'll go ahead and be the ones to provide some dashas for deposed Assadian refugees.
 

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
95
48
USA
Re: "The U.S. Should Act"

Question: Why should the U.S. act? What business is it of ours? And let's say we do act, and our actions prove to be the deciding factor in the Syrian civil war. What then? What assurances do we have that the subsequent government will be democratic or respect our notions of human rights (such as they are)?

Exactly.

Time to sit this one out entirely. Well we can do the diplomatic route, and sanctions, etc.

But hey... if other nations want to have at it with Syria... by all means.

I don't actually think a unilateral action on the part of the U.S. or any government is a good idea in any circumstance. As you mentioned yourself, the perception of the reasons behind a U.S. intervention, particularly in that region, has to impact the end decision in a major way. But absolutely should many nations be wielding whatever power and influence they may hold to try to help the situation in any way they can. And, given failure to succeed doing that, I personally don't have a problem with armed intervention from a coalition of nations.

This time we'll set up the canteen truck and MASH tent.
 

Jonny_C

Electoral Member
Apr 25, 2013
372
0
16
North Bay, ON
Re: "The U.S. Should Act"

Question: Why should the U.S. act? What business is it of ours? And let's say we do act, and our actions prove to be the deciding factor in the Syrian civil war. What then? What assurances do we have that the subsequent government will be democratic or respect our notions of human rights (such as they are)?

Why should the Americans react? Because they can?

I don't buy that the USA has to be the the world's conscience and the world's policeman.

If there are other nations that want to step up to the plate and they would like the USA to work with them in some capacity, fine. After all, there are quite a few nations other than the USA that have a more immediate stake in what goes on in Syria.
 

Cliffy

Standing Member
Nov 19, 2008
44,850
192
63
Nakusp, BC
Re: "The U.S. Should Act"

Ah, guys, you are talking about depriving the military/industrial complex of billions in potential profits here. It has always been beneficial to them. What is a little collateral damage when there is so much money to be made? The US economy is already in the crapper, so what's a few trillion more?
 

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
55,430
6,996
113
Washington DC
Re: "The U.S. Should Act"

Ah, guys, you are talking about depriving the military/industrial complex of billions in potential profits here. It has always been beneficial to them. What is a little collateral damage when there is so much money to be made? The US economy is already in the crapper, so what's a few trillion more?
Well, that's certainly true, and I fully support selling both sides whatever arms they want. Just not taking on the expense of actual operations in Syria.
 

Omicron

Privy Council
Jul 28, 2010
1,694
3
38
Vancouver
Re: "The U.S. Should Act"

... let's say we do act, and our actions prove to be the deciding factor in the Syrian civil war. What then? What assurances do we have that the subsequent government will be democratic or respect our notions of human rights (such as they are)?

It would be another mess.

Although America has way more than enough clout to decide a war, she's developed a bad track-record for handling occupations. It seems like the last time Uncle Sam did a good occupation was Japan, and that was largely due to the wizedom of MacAurther, who ended up getting shunted out in the end anyway.

The US went into Iraq with *no* occupation plan, which is nuts. American soldiers are trained to win battles, not be cops, which is a completely different skill-set (i.e., soldiers are trained to shoot on suspician, whereas cops are trained to *not* shoot even when it looks like the bastards deserve it).

Even with an occupation plan, it would be a mess. Syria took a million Iraqi refugees after George W. chose to attack Saddam, so Washington would be attacking a place harboring refugees who ran there to get away from other places that Washington had been bombing. They're going to love you for that.

But it gets crazier... many of those refugees were Shi'ite, which the Assad family is, while the majority of Syrian citizens are Sunni (which is one of the reasons Syrian citizens hate the Assad regime... it's a flip on the situation in Iraq, where Saddam was Sunni while the majority of Iraqis were Shi'ite) and so, guess who've been one of the favorite targets of Syrian rebels? The answer is, Iraqi Shi'ite refugees.

It means Uncle Sam is feeding armaments to Syrian rebels who use those arms against Iraqi refugees - refugees who moved there to get away from American bombing - as much as those arms are being used against the Assadians. That's just great. What American in their right mind would want to occupy a situation like that?

I suppose theoretically the US could say to the UN, "We'll use our forces to kick out the Assadians *if* the UN can come up with an occupation plan", but that means the hard part now lands on the shoulders of the UN's number-one provider of UN peace-keeping forces.

If I was PM, I'd say, "Sorry, you're going to have to do better than that. We're still ticked about Afghanistan, and we're not getting dragged into anything like that ever again."

And if I was President I'd say, "You guys are all insane, and we're going to focus on home-grown energy sources, like wind power, which has a better EROI (Energy Returned on Investment) than conventional oil.

(Total aside, but have you ever looked at the EROI's for various energy source? The higher the EROI, the more profitable and efficient it is. Check this out:

--

Hydroelectric: 40+
Wind: 20
Coal: 18
Conventional oil: 16
Ethanol from sugarcane: 9
Natural gas: 7
Solar: 6
Tar sands: 5
Nuclear: 5
California heavy (shale): 4
Ethanol from corn: 1.4

--

An EROI of 5-9 is required for the basic functions of an industrial society.)
 
Last edited:

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
95
48
USA
Re: "The U.S. Should Act"

Why should the Americans react? Because they can?

I don't buy that the USA has to be the the world's conscience and the world's policeman.

If there are other nations that want to step up to the plate and they would like the USA to work with them in some capacity, fine. After all, there are quite a few nations other than the USA that have a more immediate stake in what goes on in Syria.

What stake do we have in Syria?

And if other nations want to step up they should. Get the bombs dropping, the boots on the ground and flags ready.

I say we can work with them, we'll give them donuts and orange juice when they return from the front.

I've had about enough of these wars personally and I'm not a pacifist. I care for our soldiers and Marines too much and they've been fighting steadily since 2001.

So the Syrians are gassing their people... that is horrible... no doubt. But if the UN wants to send in the dogs... then they are going to have to put their own pack together. Good luck!
 

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
55,430
6,996
113
Washington DC
Re: "The U.S. Should Act"

What stake do we have in Syria?

And if other nations want to step up they should. Get the bombs dropping, the boots on the ground and flags ready.

I say we can work with them, we'll give them donuts and orange juice when they return from the front.

I've had about enough of these wars personally and I'm not a pacifist. I care for our soldiers and Marines too much and they've been fighting steadily since 2001.

So the Syrians are gassing their people... that is horrible... no doubt. But if the UN wants to send in the dogs... then they are going to have to put their own pack together. Good luck!
Now, now. We have to do our part.

We'll send a company of MPs to be trainers at HQ.
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
108,893
11,179
113
Low Earth Orbit
Re: "The U.S. Should Act"

Has anybody asked themselves this question: "What does Saudi Arabia want out of all of this considering that they are in so deep"?
 

Omicron

Privy Council
Jul 28, 2010
1,694
3
38
Vancouver
Re: "The U.S. Should Act"

Now, now. We have to do our part.

We'll send a company of MPs to be trainers at HQ.

Actually, that's not a bad idea.

One of the more effective forms of "aid" that Canada has sent to countries crawling out of a state of war-tornedness has been RCMP, who would advise those recovering nations on how to operate an effective police force.
 

Zipperfish

House Member
Apr 12, 2013
3,688
0
36
Vancouver
Re: "The U.S. Should Act"

This guy didn't get the memo: The Iraq debacle had tens, if not hundreds of thousands of casualties. Among them was the neo-con agenda.