Azhria Lilu
Captain
I've seen arguments on both sides of this one. Do you think we (US/UK) should get involved?
Politics Syria - should we intervene?
- Thread starter Azhria Lilu
- Start date
-
- Tags
- politics
Noble Alex
Cadet
Morally? Yes. Assad isn't a bad leader. Those in Syria who support him outnumber those who do not and he's loved by most, according to Syrians I've spoken to. However, at some point like many, you have to ponder why he would use chemical weapons being so close to regaining the entire country back. It's a bit odd, isn't it?
Personally, I don't enjoy the idea of soldiers from any allied country losing their lives. I do like the wonders war does for my stock.
Personally, I don't enjoy the idea of soldiers from any allied country losing their lives. I do like the wonders war does for my stock.
Knuckles
Cadet
Being ex-military I might be a little biased here...though the years since I've left have moderated that bias.
If we are going in to save innocent civilians from the horrors of chemical warfare/genocide or along those lines I'm all for it. If we're going in to overthrow the government, then hell no. To be honest I'm tired of the U.S. and U.K. always being the world police. I know we are protecting whatever interests we have there, but I just think other countries need to step up.
If we are going in to save innocent civilians from the horrors of chemical warfare/genocide or along those lines I'm all for it. If we're going in to overthrow the government, then hell no. To be honest I'm tired of the U.S. and U.K. always being the world police. I know we are protecting whatever interests we have there, but I just think other countries need to step up.
Noble Alex
Cadet
Here's what I don't understand. Assad is not a bad guy, he ran a secular government. The rebels are extremists who kill in the name of Allah, which is practically blaspheme for anyone who understands a little Islam. Second, they're rounding up and shelling Christian villages. I just find it strange the US Gov is backing up the rebels...
Judge Dredd
Scout
No, the US and UK should not. We need to focus on solving our own problems first. Plus, as Knuckles said, why are we always the police?
To my knowledge we have very little interest, if any, in Syria. Why bother?
Additionally, the last time we invaded a country with the intention to topple the "awful regime," we killed civilians ourselves and kept doing that after completing our mission.
To my knowledge we have very little interest, if any, in Syria. Why bother?
Additionally, the last time we invaded a country with the intention to topple the "awful regime," we killed civilians ourselves and kept doing that after completing our mission.
Mike54
Cadet
The U.S. has no business getting involved. There is considerable evidence that reports coming out of Syria are being faked to play up to the sympathies of the sheeple who do not follow international news agencies.
In 2011, it was estimated a single Tomahawk cruise missile cost $1.41 million (£902,080 at the current rate of exchange). Considering this country is bankrupt, how can we justify the cost of throwing just one of these missiles into Damascus?
If, in fact, innocent people were killed in gas attacks, I am well and truly sorry for the loss of lives. But if the U.S. response is to toss in a cruise missile, only to take more innocent lives, then what is being gained? President ODumbo needs to get off his high horse and witness the ongoing damage the U.S. is still causing in S.E. Asia, from Agent Orange dioxins used in the late 60's. Pot. Kettle. Black.
In 2011, it was estimated a single Tomahawk cruise missile cost $1.41 million (£902,080 at the current rate of exchange). Considering this country is bankrupt, how can we justify the cost of throwing just one of these missiles into Damascus?
If, in fact, innocent people were killed in gas attacks, I am well and truly sorry for the loss of lives. But if the U.S. response is to toss in a cruise missile, only to take more innocent lives, then what is being gained? President ODumbo needs to get off his high horse and witness the ongoing damage the U.S. is still causing in S.E. Asia, from Agent Orange dioxins used in the late 60's. Pot. Kettle. Black.
Phil_TC
Cadet
The argument for an attack on Syria is the claim that Assad’s regime has used chemical weapons, in contravention of the Chemical Weapons Convention, as approved by the United Nations. Under the same convention, 78% of the declared stockpiles of such weapons have been destroyed, including those of the US and UK. (I’m not a know-all – I just got this from Wikipedia). Therefore, the argument goes, the Syrian regime should pay a penalty, so that they do not benefit from their use, and to discourage others from doing the same.
But (and it’s a big but), conclusive evidence has not been produced to show that it was Assad’s regime, and not Al Qaeda or some other bunch of nutters, that committed the offence. Can we (or the US) fairly mete out punishment when we are not 100% sure who are the perpetrators of this terrible deed? Perhaps we can justify an attack on the weapon stores or production facilities (if we know where they are) on the grounds that it will prevent their use, whether or not they have been used already. The question then is whether such an attack will release large volumes of deadly substances that will lead to the sort of massacre that the Chemical Weapons Convention was intended to prevent.
But (and it’s a big but), conclusive evidence has not been produced to show that it was Assad’s regime, and not Al Qaeda or some other bunch of nutters, that committed the offence. Can we (or the US) fairly mete out punishment when we are not 100% sure who are the perpetrators of this terrible deed? Perhaps we can justify an attack on the weapon stores or production facilities (if we know where they are) on the grounds that it will prevent their use, whether or not they have been used already. The question then is whether such an attack will release large volumes of deadly substances that will lead to the sort of massacre that the Chemical Weapons Convention was intended to prevent.
Shawn Gossman
Cadet
If we (America) don't go over there, we will be put in the bad light for not being there if something major happens... If we do go over there, it will be the same, f us for doing it...
Damned if you do damned if you don't...
Damned if you do damned if you don't...
Azhria Lilu
Captain
By who? Everyone is saying not to get involved.
Phil_TC
Cadet
I agree with Shawn that the US (and to some extent the UK) often get the blame for situations for which they are not responsible. The US did not oppress certain elements within Syria, causing the protests that turned into an uprising. Nor are they religious fanatics who think that blowing people up is the answer to all problems (although admittedly they do have their share of weirdos). Although there are historical connections, in this instance they did not directly bring about this problem.
But they feel they have a responsibility to act (because they can) when they see an outrage such as the use of chemical weapons, and would be criticized by many if they did nothing. And it is difficult to act against one side in a conflict without in effect assisting the other, who may be just as unsavoury.
Shawn Gossman
Cadet
By no one at the moment...
But if something horribly bad happens like mass kill, we will be the first to get the blame.
The real wusses in this situation is the United Nations. They should had done something long ago but they can't do anything by themselves besides try to pass laws in countries where they have no business in...
It's kind of depressing that here we hear nearing the end of 2015 and this topic is still relevant today as when this thread was first posted! 
With Russia now involved the entire Syrian region is just getting deeper into a political quagmire that has no visible end.
With Russia now involved the entire Syrian region is just getting deeper into a political quagmire that has no visible end.
