[OPINION] What do you think about Obama and his stance on Syria?

[Rehab]

Dude, whether you like him or not, it doesn't take a lot of research to figure that Obama isn't being very trigger-happy here. He was barely even trigger-enthused at most, and that was before Russia stepped in over the chemical weapons stockpile.

[Sifer]

Originally I was for America for bombing Syria, The USA ought to keep its word on these things and to show all extremist groups the repercussions for using the banned weapons. And the reason why chemical weapons were banned in the first place is that they killed indiscriminately like in this case 1400 civilians died to to the chemical weapons, there unreliable in that the wind sends it anywhere it wishes. And if everyone uses the chemical and biological weapons no one lives to see the end. we will all be gassed or have festering diseases and it will be the apocalypse.

I don't like how Syria got off. It is like someone somewhere in the world threw acid onto people, scarring some, killing others. Afterwards the criminal says: I am sorry for what I did, here are the chemicals, it won't happen again. And the fellow gets off free. I do not like that.

I don't know how I feel about it anymore Assad just getting off free... The people on both sides fight for what they believe is right and now it will be a "even field" with no repercussions. minimum foreign involvement will insure the winner's government be as they desire which will promote stability in the region, and lead to less loss of life overall.

I don't know myself what your suppose to take away from this opinion.

[dondon151]

In explaining their decision, group leaders cited disappointment with anemic levels of Western support. (for reference, the first shipment of U.S. arms, promised like a year ago or something, just got there less than a week ago). For many rebels, the realization that even a chemical weapons attack would not trigger military intervention by the West has led to more radicalization.

do you really think that if these guys got the desired level of support from the west, their radical opinions would not be manifest?

[Life]

do you really think that if these guys got the desired level of support from the west, their radical opinions would not be manifest?

Realistically, it's possible.

One of the symptoms of radical Islam is the adamant opposition of Western Modernization, which usually culminates in violence. Shame too since the religion has set the region back centuries. The difference in the standard of living in NA vs. Middle Eastern countries that do not hold to a separation of church and state is quite astronomical.

In reverse, gaining help from the Western countries allows the governments to attempt to modernize. The problem is the last time the US tried this, it backfired with the 1979 Iranian Revolution (mind you, as bad as the Shah was, he had made Iran almost relevant).

[dondon151]

Realistically, it's possible.

One of the symptoms of radical Islam is the adamant opposition of Western Modernization, which usually culminates in violence. Shame too since the religion has set the region back centuries. The difference in the standard of living in NA vs. Middle Eastern countries that do not hold to a separation of church and state is quite astronomical.

of course literally anything is possible. the question is if it is likely. if the west pitched in more resources to help the rebels, that could simply cause more anti-western-modernization sentiment to fester. the middle east wants the west to both leave it alone and to give it help. it's a lose-lose situation.

In reverse, gaining help from the Western countries allows the governments to attempt to modernize. The problem is the last time the US tried this, it backfired with the 1979 Iranian Revolution (mind you, as bad as the Shah was, he had made Iran almost relevant).

the lesson to be learned from this is that any effective change needs to come from within. islamic states somehow need to recognize their own backwardness and move forward from there (unfortunately, given the culture of islam, this is extremely unlikely). the intervention of western powers is simply going to trigger an even stronger reactionary response.

Edited September 28, 2013 by dondon151

[Rehab]

I have literally heard people (as in, Syrians on the ground) say on NPR that they only turn to radicalization because they couldn't get the means to defend themselves otherwise, yes.

You're not doing a very good job of looking at it from their perspective. The outside world has huffed and puffed for 2, 3 years at the person murdering them, and even pledged support (however sluggishly) to them, and they just got the first shipment of arms from the U.S. like a week or two ago. The humanitarian aid being given is likewise not enough to make them feel supported.

There's "we could be doing more," and then there's "eat shit, broken country" (communicated via silence)

Edited September 30, 2013 by Rehab

[dondon151]

I have literally heard people (as in, Syrians on the ground) say on NPR that they only turn to radicalization because they couldn't get the means to defend themselves otherwise, yes.

that doesn't make it true. one wonders how merely radical thought is sufficient to provide defense in place of physical weaponry. it's one thing to say that the rebels had to turn to more radical organizations for support. it's another to say that the rebels had to adopt a more radical ideology for support. i suspect that many of these rebels would have been perfectly willing to bite the hand that will feed them in the first place.

You're not doing a very good job of looking at it from their perspective. The outside world has huffed and puffed for 2, 3 years at the person murdering them, and even pledged support (however sluggishly) to them, and they just got the first shipment of arms from the U.S. like a week or two ago. The humanitarian aid being given is likewise not enough to make them feel supported.

a different subset of people would be up in arms if the outside world actually blew the house down. there is no winning scenario. rather than accuse me of a lack of empathy, perhaps you should revise your provincial worldview of the united states as the world's policeman. you should very well know that we can't expect to swoop in, blow down the house, and expect everyone to be happy about it. the amount of effort required to set up a government in a part of the world that is doctrinally anti-western requires, as we've observed from iraq and afghanistan, far too much investment, to put it rather mildly.

Edited September 30, 2013 by dondon151

[Rehab]

More than once, in this thread and the previous one on the subject (Life's "world war three" thread), I've said that I have serious reservations about the idea of direct U.S. engagement, even if (at best) I think it might well be the best worst option available at this time (or rather, that it might've been bout a month ago, when it was a vaguely realistic idea politically). Accordingly, I don't actually much like the idea of us being "the world's policeman," because the idea feels inextricable from this sense of self-righteousness that serves scant good purpose, and yes, I'm very much aware of our reputation regarding it.

It's not even like that has always been the only option, though. Hell, the rebels were on the verge of beating Assad a year ago! But Assad has been getting direct military aid, himself, from Iran (IIRC) and Russia via his airports, and thanks to it, he's now more entrenched than ever (IIRC). And the rebels have people in the west justifying not doing anything to help them by calling them effectively as bad as Assad (see Australia's recently elected prime minister Kevin Rudd Tony Abbot), or at least "bad" enough to avoid helping much. All after the entire Syrian military was ordered to fire on civilians, with so little justification that a large fraction of it simply stopped and said, "we cannot do this anymore," and defected directly to the other side, that of the actual Syrian people. Even some of Assad's cabinet/former diplomats fled and decried the guy.

I can't stress enough that this is not "just another part of that place where everybody's killing each other called the Middle East/Africa," this was a high-functioning, relatively secular country, with a culture oriented towards peace, and one that considered itself the cultural center of the Arab world. And for all intents and purposes, that identity (along with its socioeconomic status) has been completely destroyed. It's a testament to how little radical Islamist sentiment there was in Syria to begin with that it has taken this long (three years!) and this much shit for the resistance to become so openly radicalized, considering the geopolitical reality of where it's located.

And it's not like Syrians did anything worth being called "asking for this," there were peaceful protests coming out the ears, even after it had become abundantly clear Assad was going to respond the same way every time. And it's not like they haven't been trying to "fix it themselves!" But Assad has been getting help himself. Again, maybe if Putin had fucked off, they might've won by now. But, against all logic, king fucklord himself has been the one getting military support, and not the people he has butchered. Take it out of the context of bullshit inc. (IE the reality of international diplomacy) for a sec and look at that fact.That's crazy! This is crazy! I'm surprised they haven't all, each and every one of them (and no, not all have them actually have), gone totally crazy! I'm getting emotional so I'm using too many exclamation points!

I mean, consider this: if it happened in Syria, where couldn't it happen? Any government on Earth that so suddenly started treating its people like shit so aggressively would tear its country apart. Where would it have to happen, that would make it okay or necessary for the outside world to do anything other than wag fingers?

Now, yeah, admittedly, all of the options in the "what can the U.S. (or Europe and co. at large) do" question have thorns, even moreso from here on out. Partially because of our (in many ways deserved) bad reputation in the area and in the world, but also just because the material reality of the civil war, outside factors and all, is becoming harder to get a grip on all the time, as "the people we should be supporting" gets harder to distinguish. But that's because we're letting it happen! How can they feel like doing anything but hate us more and more, if they only see us saying and promising so much on their behalf, only to leave them in the ruins of the lurch?

What we do have, is a 3.5 trillion dollar budget, and, last I heard, more weapons than we know what to do with (I heard the arms manufacturing industries constitute some of the U.S.'s biggest moneymakers, or something the like), and the side which clearly began in the moral right has only just begun to see a trickle of help from. Any action, especially at this point, will be criticized in the (Arab) world. But this is just too big, and we don't just think it's going to get worse if everyone does nothing, we know it's going to get worse (see the refugees, the radicalization of the rebellion). So much so that it's not like the U.S. would be alone if it was even so blunt as to force its way into the conflict itself; for example, France, relatively speaking, was actually kinda rarin' to go (see that recent venture in Mali), and might've felt just a little betrayed that we didn't ride in bombing shit, and Syria's neighbors like Turkey and Saudi Arabia weren't getting any friendlier with Assad, last I heard. The reality is not as simple as "no military action can possibly come to any good."

Not that I'm trying to say "fuck the police, bombs away already," but there's at least a vigorous cost-benefit analysis to be made, on both military intervention and general support.

The U.S. has done some stupid shit in recent years, and unilaterally, at that. No contest there. But, say, in Iraq, ain't nobody fucking wanted us there. The Syrians have, at the very least, been going uh yes maybe we might actually want some help please like a lot of help would be good, for (millionth time here, but I feel it bears emphasis) years, now.

And at this point, there are also going to be critics of inaction, so, yeah, the "damned if you don't" part is also definitely in political play, even putting aside the refugees and the radicalization.

fuck is this response ever bloated, nobody's probably gonna want to read all this shit. at least it's a bunch of opinions in a thread for opinions

Realistically, it's possible.

One of the symptoms of radical Islam is the adamant opposition of Western Modernization, which usually culminates in violence. Shame too since the religion has set the region back centuries. The difference in the standard of living in NA vs. Middle Eastern countries that do not hold to a separation of church and state is quite astronomical.

In reverse, gaining help from the Western countries allows the governments to attempt to modernize. The problem is the last time the US tried this, it backfired with the 1979 Iranian Revolution (mind you, as bad as the Shah was, he had made Iran almost relevant).

Fuck the Dulles brothers. That is all

Edited October 1, 2013 by Rehab

[shadykid]

all I'm going to say is that the situation over there is so messed up it's better to leave it alone

[Raven]

I want Syria to move forward and modernise itself, to not get stuck in the 18th century just because some Muslim extremists want it that way. I feel sorry for any country who are anchored to the past just because some religion dictates it so. I feel it's necessary to let things take its course and let Assad take down these people who want to keep their country locked into a shitty way of life.

[Rehab]

Dude. They literally just came out with this radicalization shit. I don't want to come off as an asshole but I have to ask what kind of attention you have been paying to the whole thing for the last couple years. The whole thing started because of Assad's- ugh you're kinda rustling my jimmies here man

Could you please read the longass post above at least until it gets to what Assad did, and how long it has taken to radicalize? Assad has become one of the most regressive, horrifying rulers out there, even if he is (was) relatively secular, and he has become one of the most clear "bad guys" this millennium; this all started out as peaceful student protests that he had the Syrian army open fire on, again and again. It keeped happening, and the army itself fractured over how horrifying the things they got ordered to do were. Universities have been bombed while exams were going on, whole towns have been terrorized by their own country's military. He's been saying the protesters, who became the rebels, were radical the whole time, but they were freakin everyday Syrians (not a very radicalized people, to start with, is understating it), and it has been abundantly clear that he's been bullshitting the whole time. It makes no sense to call the rebels the real evil, or evil at all.

The idea of the guy being fit to rule is preposterous, and the idea that he should win is.. it defies any moral justification, if you actually know what the guy's done. He destroyed his own country.

I honestly thought this was common knowledge- people have reported the hell out of it, you don't even have to look very far.

The Syrian National council and FSA have had their mission statement be to restore power to the people, for forever. The problem is that so many of the people who have nominally been fighting under their banner broke off, because, while sorta backed by Turkey and the west, the latter has barely helped shit (third time I've said this, but the first batch of U.S.-provided arms just got there a week or so ago, after two years of fighting). They can probably get better backing than the shit they've gotten from us so far from somewhere else, as ludicrous as that sounds.

These people want their own country back. They have been trying to fix it themselves, but they haven't gotten real help doing it, while Assad has. If, at this point, these people aren't enamored with us, or our way of doing things, it is our fucking fault.

Man I'm sorry, I know I must be a chore to read, but please

Assad is an asshole

He's the king

of assholes

Italics, bold, jimmies, et cetera

Edited October 1, 2013 by Rehab

[Raven]

You've right to be rustled; I'm pretty ignorant of the facts to matters that have occurred before the media decided to take a large interest in Syria's happenings.

I mean I've heard that Assad's forces did some shit, but to what extent, I don't know. I am however under the impression that some/most of the rebels/FSA are made up of Taliban. With this in mind, I would have thought that fighting against the terrorist scum would help bring the country towards becoming more modern and westernised. And seriously, fuck the Taliban. The crimes they have committed around the world, let alone in Syria, are a crime against humanity. I see Assad as the lesser of two evils here. Am I wrong in thinking this?

Granted the FSA are made up of many different groups ranging from freedom fighters to actual terrorists. But when you can't distinguish one group from the other on sight alone, what do you do?

[Life]

Granted the FSA are made up of many different groups ranging from freedom fighters to actual terrorists. But when you can't distinguish one group from the other on sight alone, what do you do?

You stay the fuck out of it and stop pretending to care.

The only nations that should care are the ones that have a vested interest in Syria. That would be Russia/Iran/Israel/Lebanon. The fact that the last two are doing nothing is a huge tell.

Edited October 2, 2013 by Life

[Raven]

A huge tell towards what?

[Life]

That you should stop pretending to give a shit. Russia and Iran already had a prior vested interest in Syria but the US has had none since long ago.

[Raven]

As an individual I am interested in this situation, and would like to see how it unfolds. I however am against the idea of interfering.

[Rehab]

Many Syrians themselves have very much disagreed that the only countries who should care about what happens to them are the ones you list off, and have for a long time. Besides, the refugee situation is affecting more countries than just those, like Jordan (see the ~million person refugee tent camp there that's bigger than the actual Jordanian city it neighbors) and Turkey, not to mention the Turkish jet Assad's forces shot down a year or so ago. I haven't heard anything that sets those four countries you name apart from the rest of Syria's neighbors, and simply hearing you say they have vested interests in Syria, which I can only assume means interest in Assad staying since you group them with Russia, doesn't make the reason why they're special any clearer. It also doesn't speak to why the desires of the people who have been brutalized by and are fighting against Assad should come after the hopes that anybody else may have for their country.