The Syrian "Revolution": A Farce from Beginning to End

Q. What is wrong with you people?

No, what is wrong with you people?
How many people have to die before America understands that interfering in other countries does more harm than good.

Offer advice, offer aid if you wish, but keep your troops, drones, and missiles for yourselves.
Why not spend it on better housing, in America?

Tell that to those being gassed in Syria.

Is the life of a Syrian child being gassed to death with Syrian weapons worth less than a house?

Well obviously yes. Because the cost of sending a few missiles to prevent him from doing it again is apparently less important than housing in the US. I mean during the Rwandan genocide, the US tried to argue that fuel for a plane to fly over to interfere with their radio broadcasting of when and how to commit the genocide was too costly and over 800,000 lives later, the US wrung its hands because it sat on its hands as a genocide occurred.

The less human rights means to America, the greater its moral decay.



Billvon said:
"And now, friends and countrymen, if the wise and learned philosophers of the elder world, the first observers of nutation and aberration, the discoverers of maddening ether and invisible planets, the inventors of Congreve rockets and Shrapnel shells, should find their hearts disposed to enquire what has America done for the benefit of mankind? Let our answer be this: America, with the same voice which spoke herself into existence as a nation, proclaimed to mankind the inextinguishable rights of human nature, and the only lawful foundations of government. America, in the assembly of nations, since her admission among them, has invariably, though often fruitlessly, held forth to them the hand of honest friendship, of equal freedom, of generous reciprocity. She has uniformly spoken among them, though often to heedless and often to disdainful ears, the language of equal liberty, of equal justice, and of equal rights. She has, in the lapse of nearly half a century, without a single exception, respected the independence of other nations while asserting and maintaining her own. She has abstained from interference in the concerns of others, even when conflict has been for principles to which she clings, as to the last vital drop that visits the heart. She has seen that probably for centuries to come, all the contests of the European world, will be contests of inveterate power, and emerging right. Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. She will commend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example. She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom. The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force. She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit."

-John Quincy Adams 1821
Then withdraw from the UN and cancel the treaties to protect human rights that are now enshrined in law in the US.

Ignore the precedents set and revert back to the days where America was self absorbed. You are no longer the self proclaimed leader of the free world. Nothing more than words. And weak words at that. Broken promises.
 
I dread the USA getting involved like dread putting my dick in a blender! What a cluster fuck Syria is and even a air assault like the one we did for libya is likely only going to add gas to the fire. But we did make a promise to put our foot down and chemical weapons, fuck!
 
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/28/w...intervention-in-syria-officials-say.html?_r=0


From the article:
Even without the evidence that the inspectors are collecting, the United States and other Western powers have concluded that the attack last week, which killed hundreds of people, was caused by banned chemical munitions and that Mr. Assad’s forces were responsible, crossing a threshold that required a forceful response.

This concerns me. :( I understand the reason that the US will be getting involved, but hoping this doesn't launch the US into a major war.
I don't think the US can handle another major war, financially, or otherwise. Anyone have any thoughts to this?

Evidence on the ground will have degraded. Plus Assad's forces bombing the area will have also destroyed evidence that exists on the ground and rubble itself. However it is understood that they (the rebel fighters and other groups (ie doctors, etc who were there)) had taken samples from the victims and managed to smuggle them out for testing. Skin, hair, blood, saliva samples would show what chemicals were used and the US and world community have a fairly good idea of what types of chemicals Assad has stockpiled.
 
Then withdraw from the UN and cancel the treaties to protect human rights that are now enshrined in law in the US.

The UN does more good than bad - thus it's worth supporting.

Ignore the precedents set . . . .

Right. Vietnam. Korea. The Iraq wars. The installation of the Shah. Our support of the Mujahideen. How many did those wars kill? You really want to continue that tradition? You LIKE those precedents?

You are no longer the self proclaimed leader of the free world.

Good! It's about time we stopped thinking we were God, and started seeing ourselves as just a member of a global community.
 
Bells said:
Because it is your duty as a global citizen to care.

It is worth noting here that national borders are just lines on a map. My map has lots of lines:
-One separates my property from my neighbors'.
-One separates my town from other towns.
-Another separates my county from other counties.
-Another separates my state from other states.
-Another separates my country from other countries.
-Another separates members of NATO from non-NATO members.

That people can arbitrarily choose to stop caring about other people for no other reason than that they exist on the other side of one of those lines is obscenely immoral.
 
More than the last week has filled the world with disgust?

And just to reiterate. One does not try to keep control of one's country by using chemical weapons against civilians.

What is wrong with you people?

How could you have even said that with a straight face and tried to use it as a valid argument?

No, really. How?

There is no justification for what Assad is doing. None. I don't care if he was trying to keep control of his own anus. Dropping chemical bombs is in no way justifiable or acceptable in any circumstance.

I don't understand how anyone can opt for what you all seem to believe is the lesser evil here. Assad is not the lesser evil. The vacuum is the lesser evil. The greater evil is the arsewipe using chemical weapons on civilians and then bombing them to smitherines to try to get rid of the evidence.

How many atrocities do we have to witness that the US is too busy counting its dollars to try to help stop said atrocities? How many?

Syria is already in chaos.

When a leader of a country uses chemical weapons on his citizens, then he no longer has a legitimate right to rule. He has forfeited his right to his self imposed throne. He isn't trying to keep control of his country. He is trying to obliterate his opposition and he is trying to make sure that he murders the families and children of his opposition. If they were not Syrians, it would be ethnic cleansing and genocide. If those people were from another country or other ethnic background, then it would be deemed ethnic cleansing and genocide. But they are Syrians. And because of this, everyone seems to think 'well, it's an internal matter, let them deal with it'?

Really?

Again, I have to ask, what is wrong with you people?

At what point would you deem it acceptable to intervene?

If gassing his civilian citizens to death doesn't warrant intervention, what will?

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread...nning-to-End&p=3102591&viewfull=1#post3102591

As I said, I think the only valid argument is the moral argument, the WMD argument. There are bad dictators in abundance around the world. Should the US attack and invade all of them? Who draws the lines? Who decides which countries are worthy of invasion? The US cannot afford to invade and rebuild every country ran by a blood thirsty tyrant as the US has its own internal problems (i.e. Republican/Tea Party conservatism). There are limits; there are constraints on what is possible. And a US invasion doesn’t mean the bleeding stops. The Mexican Drug War has killed about as many civilians as the Syrian Civil War. So does that mean the US should invade Mexico? If we draw a line, I think it needs to be based on the likelihood of success – the likelihood of achieving political stability in the region with the application of military force. Is it likely a US invasion will lead to long term stability? And if the answer is no, then we should keep our powder dry. And I think that question is the reason for US reticence to act militarily in Syria. It is not clear that US intervention will lead to long term political stability in the country. It could make the situation worse. It could broaden the conflict. There are significant risks to any military action. In Iraq, between 4 and 5 thousand people are still dying annually as a result of ongoing military actions. It takes more than military might to restore political stability.

The costs of reconstructing a politically stable Syrian state will be great. And it seems to me those costs should be shared. Europe, Asia, and the Middle East should all have a stake in Syrian reconstruction. It shouldn’t be just the US. Taking down the Assad government is the easy part. Rebuilding the country is the difficult part and the most expensive part.

That said, I am sure the US will act militarily within the next few days. I expect US military action will be limited and intended to deter the Syrian regime from using weapons of mass destruction on civilians. I don’t expect an invasion and occupation.
 
No, what is wrong with you people?
How many people have to die before America understands that interfering in other countries does more harm than good.
I would like to know if you (and others) are capable of looking at this through a lens not clouded by your opinion of the US.

The relevant question is not whether the US should intervene, it is whether ANYONE should intervene: are the Syrian people worthy of intervention to save them?
 
More than 190,000 people have been killed in the 10 years since the war in Iraq began. The war will cost the U.S. $2.2 trillion, including substantial costs for veterans care through 2053, far exceeding the initial government estimate of $50 to $60 billion, according to a new report by scholars with the "Costs of War" project at Brown University's Watson Institute for International Studies.

http://news.brown.edu/pressreleases/2013/03/warcosts

190,000 dead. 2 Trillion Dollars wasted. Yet you want more of the same?
 
Regarding cost: for comparison, wiki lists the action taken in Libya to have cost up to $4.4 Billion total for all participants, of which about $1B was spent by the US. That comes to about $3 per person in the US. Would you be willing to pay that much to depose Assad and stop him from killing his people? I would.
 
More than 190,000 people have been killed in the 10 years since the war in Iraq began. The war will cost the U.S. $2.2 trillion, including substantial costs for veterans care through 2053, far exceeding the initial government estimate of $50 to $60 billion, according to a new report by scholars with the "Costs of War" project at Brown University's Watson Institute for International Studies.

http://news.brown.edu/pressreleases/2013/03/warcosts

190,000 dead. 2 Trillion Dollars wasted. Yet you want more of the same?
Why assume it would be the same as Iraq? Why not Libya?
 
Look Libya was cheap, only $1.1 billion for the USA and no casualties, compared to the clusterfuck of Iraq the difference a clear
- Have a coalition of nations that cover most of the cost and infrastructure.
- ONLY DO AIRSTRIKES, NO SOLDIERS ON THE GROUND!

A repeat with Syria could also be like Libya: cheap and painless... for US... I fear it will provide very little improvement of Syrians.
 
What? Is Libya your success story?
Libya is screwed too.
Here's a headline from last Friday's Wall Street Journal online:

Libya on the Brink of Chaos
http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2013/08/23/libya-on-the-brink-of-chaos/
You're mixing and matching several different points (cherry picking the negatives instead of answering the actual questions). In terms of cost to the US (dollars and lives), Libya was cheaper. So my question was why would you assume Iraq instead?

Beyond that is whether the Libyans were worth helping by anyone (that effort was led by the French):
1. Is it worse there now than right before the intervention?
2. Given that both intervention and non-intervention are gambles, can you logically weigh the odds of it helping? Is, why does an improvement need to be guaranteed? The only guarantee is that if you do nothing, you won't make it better.
 
Cheap?
You screw up a country and then have the cheek to congratulate yourself that you did it without spending much money?
You've got to be having a wind-up.

Is Libya worse? Maybe not for the United States purposes, but for its people it's a worsening mess.
Read the article.
 
Back
Top