Should the U.S. intervene in Syria?

That is true, I hate the Republican candidates. Though if we do attack Iran that would be a massive mistake.

 

I understand there are reasons to intervene, but on the other end, America needs to solve it's own problems first. Financially, America needs to get it's shit together.

 

When talking about Iran and their conflict I suggest you guys watch this 10 min video


And you should know about the supreme leader of Iran and what that position entails. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_Khamenei

They are not producing nuclear weapons even if they did, why the can United States and their allied (Israel) have "weapons of mass destruction" and not Iran? Give me a direct link of Ahmadinejad saying he would wipe Israel off the map.



One attack on a country's currency is an outright declaration of war. Russia's helping hand to Iran in this situation may help Iran out of the worst crisis. In the longer term, it would be totally unacceptable for the U.S. to allow oil trading in currencies other than dollars. Countries like China, India and Japan have large holdings of dollars to ensure the import of oil. If other currencies are accepted, the dollar will be less demand and less worthwhile. For the U.S. it would mean economic disaster now that the loss is as large as the overall economy.


Why attack Iran? Because of the large jaws, and disobedience to the U.S.? Are these repercussions for the "war on terror"? Is it because of the Israel / Netanyahu's desire for war against this major country? Or is it to strengthen the enemy image so that Obama gets the fundamentalist right wing of the home country on his side before the election in 2012?

 

No. U.S. should not put his nose in other people's business ,Because they already have destroyed and looted enough in other countries. Let Syria solve it themselves or the Arab League. Why always the united states? China or Russia can help them to. Just sayin'. Also : The people wich Assad is killing are (mostly) Muslims he does not touch the other people.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel

Take a look at all of the anti-Semitic and anti-Israeli remarks. If he doesn't harbor a distinct hatred towards Israel and the Jews then I don't know why he 'spews all the shit' as SuF said about him. I also didn't say they were producing nuclear arms. I said if they were to amass a nuclear cache, which they are actively perusing. If they weren't why refuse the UN permission to search their nuclear facilities?

Enough of that though, about to derail the topic at hand.

 

Now imagine you are the big brother and you see your little brother gets bullied by another boy.

You would naturally stand up and confront the bully.

Same case here, the U.S and Israel are allies. Israel is possibly the closest ally United States can find in the troubled region. By aiding and intervening in Syria, the States is once again helping a brother in need.

The intervention, of course will have other reasons. The most controversial one is the possible armament and possession of nukes by Syria. And if you have noticed, anything to do with nukes, the U.S will somehow be involved.

This is not a yes or no question but rather a what if one. Due to the uncertainty in this issue, let's just see what's the U.S next move.

 

Er, you're talking about Iran....we're talking about Syria on this thread...

 

What is your opinion on the topic? You made the thread but have yet to make your argument. I am just curious what you think should be done.

 

I'm Syrian and voted No to this poll simply because we saw what the intervention did in Libya. Furthermore, this "revolution" isn't really a real one since it's not the syrian population who wanted it and it clearly is wanted/organised by someone else (Uncle Sam?) who is financing it (by arming the Rebels and hiring mercenaries). If this revolution was really wanted by the majority of the population, all of this would be already over. Until now, 1 year after the events started, Assad is still here and I think he will not leave anytime soon obviously because this "revolution" isn't wanted by the syrians. Syria has a lot of geopolitical influence in the Middle East, a NATO intervention wouldn't be without catastrophic consequences on the stability of the region and all the destruction that only the Syrian people will pay for, while the US / Russia / China are playing their game (cold war?)
Now I have family and friends in Syria, I'm sad to see my country rewinding 10 years back after these events when before with the "Dictator" and without the thing you Europeans/Americans call ''democracy" and let me tell you: we were doing just fine!

 

So the claims of mass murder by the government is false?

 

You must be a minority to believe the hate instilled by Bashar Al-Kalb. Look at Homs (Baba Amr especially), Halab, Daraa, etc, etc. The senseless killing has got to stop. Rather than talking about it, the Assad regime would rather kill it's own people. It's estimated that some 20%-30% of the people actually support Assad, and that's because of propaganda and what sect someone belongs to.

Open your eyes.

 

http://en.rian.ru/russia/20120225/171527722.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jan/17/syrians-support-assad-western-propaganda

http://english.pravda.ru/hotspots/t...-Russia_confirms_foreign_invasion_of_Syria-0/

The rebellion is carried out by a violent guerrilla groups and rebel contested by force.

These peaceful demonstrators ARE NOT peaceful demonstrators but rather terrorists or war criminals (they are a connected device) equipped with weapons to fight.

By supplying terrorists with weapons, one can conclude that France and the United States supports terrorism against the Syrian people. Nice to have it clear who supports what.
Open your eyes

 

I dont think a few of your sources are very credible, newsworthy sources.

 

I'm truly torn. On one hand, I empathize with individuals seeking freedom from tyranny, but on the other hand, I think we as nation need to respect the sovereignty of other nations. In a international political scheme there are a number of various players involved (with varying interests), but when nations interfere with issues that are not taking place within their borders...and support rebel interests within a tumultuous state, we are in essence joining the cause, thereby declaring war against the leaders of a sovereign state.

When a precedent like this is set, and nations are permitted to interfere within another nation's borders without their consent, trouble brews--especially when the world hegemonic power is the interfering nation.

Other nations feel threatened when the hegemonic power exerts its authority within another nation's borders due to their fear that they may be next. Since there are no parameters set (as to what conditions make intervention permissible) nations fear that their sovereignty is being threatened...and when nations feel threatened, they react and unify with other agreeing powers to protect themselves from the potential aggression. Wars are often a result of these political strains, ESPECIALLY when there are emerging superpowers in the midst who are jockeying for control.

However, if all nations had agreed to get involved in Syria, this act would be permissible--but since two very powerful nations are against this action (one of which IS the emerging superpower) we need to refrain from this action in order to maintain international peace.

I empathize with the Syrian people, I believe they deserve help...but I do not think our country should be the one to extend the hand. We need to allow other players in the international political machine to take on leadership roles, it is not our job to impose our will upon others..its no wonder why so many nations dislike us...we need to change.

 

Since when has the arab league ever prevented slaughter? Must I bring up Darfur? Have we as a country forgotten what happened in Rwanda? Are my hypothetical questions annoying yet?

I'd support UN led intervention. If the security council (aka China/Russia) vetoes a resolution, then a non UN affiliated yet still international peacekeeping force would be appropriate.

 

So no innocent people have been killed? Are you fucking retarded? It's one thing to fight "terrorists" but it's another thing to kill innocent human beings. Why would soldiers defect from the Syrian Army if they were fighting terrorists and keep their country safe? They were commanded to kill innocent people. The whole conflict in Syria started with little school kids writing anti-Assad graffiti, and they were arrested. It's not like the Assad government has imprisoned thousands of opponents to the Assad regime before the whole revolution even started. Your sources are credible, sike.

Surly this baby was a terrorist: http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/21/world/meast/syria-wounded/index.html

Watch the video, I assume you understand Arabic. Listen to the doctor, unless you think he's a terrorist too.

 

First of all, terrorism isn't just a simple term. Its about sending a message through terror, fear, etc. A rebel force fighting a governmental military force is not terrorism.

Secondly, the protests started very peacefully and the government began shooting them dead in the streets. Army defectors began fighting back to protect those who were peacefully protesting and it is well within their rights to defend themselves against an unlawful and unjust mass murder.

Using your logic, the founding fathers of America were terrorists. France supported us and thus France was sponsoring terrorists and helped terrorists overthrow a government and start their own new country run by terrorists. Open your eyes.

 

Excuse the profanity, but I think we've done enough. Someone else needs to sort it out, we're knee deep in shit as it is and we were almost as bad as Greece, what with the Occupy riots and all, and their whole economy is trashed! We need to sort our shit out, and then we can help. Someone else needs to step up to the plate, instead of waiting for us to do it...

 

Of course it is false, there is no MASS murder that I know of, atleast not until now, people are getting killed and that's a normal thing for what is happening atm in Syria.

Trust me bro, I have my eyes opened. I always was against this regime and the Assads family. When the problems started, I was all the way anti-regime and wanted him to fall then after 8 months I changed my point of view after I saw all the obvious propaganda of the Western Medias and meanwhile I heard a lot of stories from people who live there, and trust me, mercenaries and rebels and terrorist groups are making a mess in Syria and this revolution isn't supported by more than 20% of the population of Syria.

Of course innocent people are dying, I do not defend the Assads regime, but I'm wondering if the next President will be able to keep Syria from a civil war, what Assad was able to do until now, especially with the religious complexity in Syria. Although, don't think I'm an idiot or blinded by the regime's propaganda, what you, however, don't see is the Western media's propaganda that are sponsoring violence in Syria in order to give "Freedom" to the Syrian people (God knows what their Intrests are)

 

This doesn't give them a reason to kill innocent people. Why won't Syria let journalists into the country? The rallies with thousands of people are more than likely not terrorists. I won't fail to acknowledge however these terrorists could make their way in because of the instability right now. It's hard to put a number on how many people actually "support" the government, considering most of them do it out of fear. Also the minorities in Syria support the current regime because of their propaganda that they will all die if Bashar and Baath aren't in power.

I've heard stories from people who live there too, and it's not pretty. Now the phone lines are cut so there's no contacting them.