Intervention in Syria

[j44]

There are probably more options but I wanted to get a feel for the opinions here.

Edited March 15, 2012 by j44

[Bonam]

Well, there are really two contexts to the question. The first is philosophical: would intervening be the moral thing to do? The other is practical: given the costs involved and available resources, economic conditions, likely casualties, likelihood of success, etc, is intervening the reasonable thing to do?

I think the reality is the US (which would likely shoulder the greatest burden if any military intervention was carried out) just needs a break. Its soldiers have been on rotations in middle eastern wars for over a decade, its economy is deep in deficit. While a Syrian campaign could be carried out, I think it may be wiser for western nations to address their domestic issues and save their strength for if a really threatening (to the west) crisis breaks out. In the end, the syrians will cherish their freedom more if they win it for themselves.

[dre]

How would we even know whos behalf on which to intervene on?

This is partially sectarian conflict between two well organized armed factions. This is not the government firing on a bunch of peaceful protesters as some would have you believe. Theres no real reason to pick either FSA, or Assad over one another. And the country is roughly split in terms of who they support.

Good christ... the Canadian government cant even solve problems in CANADA!!! And we know jack shit about this conflict, or the two sides involved.

Edited March 15, 2012 by dre

[j44]

Well, there are really two contexts to the question. The first is philosophical: would intervening be the moral thing to do? The other is practical: given the costs involved and available resources, economic conditions, likely casualties, likelihood of success, etc, is intervening the reasonable thing to do?

I think the reality is the US (which would likely shoulder the greatest burden if any military intervention was carried out) just needs a break. Its soldiers have been on rotations in middle eastern wars for over a decade, its economy is deep in deficit. While a Syrian campaign could be carried out, I think it may be wiser for western nations to address their domestic issues and save their strength for if a really threatening (to the west) crisis breaks out. In the end, the syrians will cherish their freedom more if they win it for themselves.

I'm asking in a practical sense. I think morally it is an obvious decision but that isn't how the world works.

I think the US is holding out because they know that Assad will go eventually. It make take a lot longer than they like but I he can't hold on forever.

There is also the fact that Syria would be probably be Iraq part 2...well, times two might be a better fit.

Iran is also a factor too. Obviously very complicated. Like Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan etc. etc.

[j44]

How would we even know whos behalf on which to intervene on?

This is partially sectarian conflict between two well organized armed factions. This is not the government firing on a bunch of peaceful protesters as some would have you believe. Theres no real reason to pick either FSA, or Assad over one another. And the country is roughly split in terms of who they support.

Good christ... the Canadian government cant even solve problems in CANADA!!! And we know jack shit about this conflict, or the two sides involved.

From a strategic standpoint Nato, the GCC and the Arab states would all side against Assad.

[dre]

I'm asking in a practical sense. I think morally it is an obvious decision but that isn't how the world works.

I think the US is holding out because they know that Assad will go eventually. It make take a lot longer than they like but I he can't hold on forever.

There is also the fact that Syria would be probably be Iraq part 2...well, times two might be a better fit.

Iran is also a factor too. Obviously very complicated. Like Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan etc. etc.

I think morally it is an obvious decision.

Yup, pretty easy to see we have no business picking sides in their sectarian civil war.

And Im not sure Assad will go eventually... Hes pretty well entrenched, and has the support of about 1/2 of the population.

[Moonlight Graham]

I'd most definitely need to study the issue more closely.

[j44]

Yup, pretty easy to see we have no business picking sides in their sectarian civil war.

And Im not sure Assad will go eventually... Hes pretty well entrenched, and has the support of about 1/2 of the population.

In a hypothetical scenario stopping any more of this would be moral in my mind.

I think part of that 1/2 supports what they see as stability and not necessarily Assad. They could support someone else if they provided stability.

[Bonam]

I don't think its morally obvious either. What amount of violent suppression of protests are governments allowed to carry out before we intervene? Some people were killed as a result of government action related to protests in the US and canada, too. Should the international community have viewed it as its moral imperative to intervene?

Clearly there were important differences, in numbers of people killed, in the reasons for and validity of their protests, in the level of personal responsibility and intent of the country's leaders.

Which criteria, exactly, must be met before we decide that it is a moral imperative to intervene in the internal affairs of a sovereign nation?

Id be inclined to say syria probably meets that threshold, but as dre illustrates, that is far from a consensus opinion. I will say this: if gaddafi did enough to incur the wrath of the international community and to justify intervention, there is no question at all that assad did even more.

Edited March 15, 2012 by Bonam

[bush_cheney2004]

....I think the US is holding out because they know that Assad will go eventually. It make take a lot longer than they like but I he can't hold on forever.

The USA and France had a very bad experience in the region during the Lebanese Civil War (barracks bombings). It was far easier to just have an Iowa class battleship lob 16" shells at the Syrians and Druze in the Bekka Valley.

No love lost for Syrians to this day.

[Guest Derek L]

The USA and France had a very bad experience in the region during the Lebanese Civil War (barracks bombings). It was far easier to just have an Iowa class battleship lob 16" shells at the Syrians and Druze in the Bekka Valley.

No love lost for Syrians to this day.

If we select No for intervention, we still have to select an option for the second question....Is there a way to edit your poll with perhaps another option for the second question?

[Guest Derek L]

The USA and France had a very bad experience in the region during the Lebanese Civil War (barracks bombings). It was far easier to just have an Iowa class battleship lob 16" shells at the Syrians and Druze in the Bekka Valley.

No love lost for Syrians to this day.

Iowa class = Gun Boat diplomacy and then some!!!

I had the opportunity to see Wisconsin open up on Vieques in the late 80s...WOW

[j44]

If we select No for intervention, we still have to select an option for the second question....Is there a way to edit your poll with perhaps another option for the second question?

Fixed. Thanks, I wasn't aware of that.

[Guest Derek L]

Fixed. Thanks, I wasn't aware of that.

Thank you sir

[j44]

I don't think its morally obvious either. What amount of violent suppression of protests are governments allowed to carry out before we intervene?

Which criteria, exactly, must be met before we decide that it is a moral imperative to intervene in the internal affairs of a sovereign nation?

I’m talking about this specific situation at this moment in time. In my opinion if it could be done well (and no I’m not getting into what that means exactly) I think it would be morally right to stop what is happening in Syria. But I’d rather not get bogged down in this philosophical discussion. I just wanted to get some opinions on the situation in Syria.

In the real world it isn’t black and white. I’m back and forth on what I think should be done and I don’t see anything being done anytime soon. Maybe that will change if Turkey decides to do more.

Edited March 15, 2012 by j44

[Shady]

This is partially sectarian conflict between two well organized armed factions.

Complete nonsense. You may as well be a mouth piece for the Assad government. But why am I not suprised. You're the same person that continues to defend the brutality of the Iranian regime, while at the same time, wishing ill on Canada and Canadians for paying attention.

The fact is, there are two sides. One with an army, and one without. The side with an army, is the side of a murderous, totalitarian, miniority regime. The other side is regular people, pushing back on their dictatorship.

That being said, I don't think, as of now, we should get involved. But to pretend that it's two well organized armed factions is complete and utter fantasy, and tantamount to Assad propaganda.

[GostHacked]

Complete nonsense. You may as well be a mouth piece for the Assad government. But why am I not suprised. You're the same person that continues to defend the brutality of the Iranian regime, while at the same time, wishing ill on Canada and Canadians for paying attention.

The fact is, there are two sides. One with an army, and one without. The side with an army, is the side of a murderous, totalitarian, miniority regime. The other side is regular people, pushing back on their dictatorship.

That being said, I don't think, as of now, we should get involved. But to pretend that it's two well organized armed factions is complete and utter fantasy, and tantamount to Assad propaganda.

The West is looking at backing the rebels, like we've seen before. Libya for example. The only difference with Syria is that it has big friends, one is Russia that has troops as well as the military hardware in country. Most likely supporting the Assad regime.

Russia backing Assad, and the west backs the rebels. Indeed this is a war between two well armed factions. One is the NATO the other is Russia/China.

We should not be involved, this I agree with. However we are already involved. The reason Libya was love bombed and littered with depleted uranium rounds, is because Libya had no friends. Well not very powerful ones that could do anything for Libya.

Edited March 15, 2012 by GostHacked

[j44]

Russia backing Assad, and the west backs the rebels. Indeed this is a war between two well armed factions. One is the NATO the other is Russia/China.

I'm not saying that there aren't arms going in to the rebels but I wouldn't say they are well armed compared to the Syrian army.

[Shady]

Russia backing Assad, and the west backs the rebels. Indeed this is a war between two well armed factions.

No, it's not yet a war between two well armed factions. That's just not reality. Right now, it's tanks vs hand guns. It's tens of thousands of a well trained army vs a few hundred civilian protesters. Could that change? Absolutely.

We should not be involved, this I agree with. However we are already involved.

I agree. I didn't think we should have gotten involved in Libya either. The only involvement I'd agree with is diplomtically.