What should we do about Syria??

[kentuck]

I am of the opinion that we should not sacrifice American lives to change the governments of other people. It is up to the citizens of every country to figure out a way to rid themselves of tyrants and unpopular governments.

However, there are exceptions to every rule. When there is genocide or murder beyond control, then the world has an obligation to intervene. Whether Syria has reached that point is debatable. No doubt, there is a lot of killing and civil unrest in that country.

Should America intervene unilaterally in any country? Should we intervene at all with all the problems we have in our own country? In my opinion, the answer is "no".

[Marrah_G]

1. I think we should do nothing

We cannot police the world. Let some other countries speak up and put pressure on them.

[melm00se]

4. ^^^^+1

[newfie11]

10. Agreed!!!!!!!

[spanone]

2. united nations

[graham4anything]

3. Whatever President Obama, VP Biden SOS Kerry want(it's his decision I guess) is 100% fine by me.

Democratic party AIN'T pacifists nor were they ever.

Iraq was a mistake, doesn't mean war is bad.

Same with Iran.

Whatever they want is AOK with me.

BTW, someone posted an article in the Kerry group, which is for positive posts, so don't want to respond there. But that article left out Hillary, the single greatest SOS of all time.
OOPS.

[kentuck]

5. I choose Jesus.

Over Obama and Biden.

[graham4anything]

11. I'm Jewish. Relgion has NO place in our government as is the law mandated since day 1.

[karynnj]

22. It is NOT Kerry's decision - any more than it would have been Hillary's

Only the President can take the country to war.

As to the article that was posted, it is not in the least negative with respect to Hillary Clinton. I posted it - http://www.democraticunderground.com/11093045. It was from the Washington Post, which has always been pretty pro Hillary Clinton and even more pro Susan Rice - Kerry, not so much. The writer goes out of the way to praise HRC for things that she did. In fact, he argues that it is timing etc that meant that she did not lead the type of negotiations that would lead her to being considered a top Secretary of State. It is very easy to read between the lines that he considers that things she did - and causes she stood for - put her in an excellent position to become President.

In addition, he is not so silly to say - after 3 months as SOS - that Kerry is an excellent or top Secretary of State. He does say he has that potential - the same thing many articles said in 2009 of Clinton.

As to your comments on Syria and Iran, it DOES matter if there is war. If the US becomes embroiled in war with either Syria or Iran, it could be far worse than Iraq. Iran is a bigger, stronger country than Iraq was. Anyone mistaking Syria for Libya ignores that Syria has a stronger military.

There already is a civil war in Syria. One we could not have prevented. In fact, one of the things listed against Kerry and Obama is that they did reach out to Assad and they did re-establish diplomacy. I actually think this is something both men should be proud of.

Why? It was clear from the beginning that success was a far less than 50/50 proposition. It would have been less a political risk to simply continue not engaging. However, the engagement did not make the civil war more likely nor did they "give" Assad anything - as they asked for observable actions before that could happen. However, what if there were a 1% chance that Assad could be reached and could be moved towards the reforms needed and towards moving away from Iran. What would the impact have been? The cost of that effort was just a few days of the SFRC chair's time. A cost benefit analysis could easily show that it was a very smart (and politically brave) move. (The reason a cost benefit analysis would have been good - even assuming only 1% probability of success is that the cost was very low and the potential benefit - even multiplied by .01 is very high.

What that effort showed is how much Obama wanted to avoid Syria falling into civil war. The sad thing for Syria is that Assad did not take the steps to reform 3 years ago. Now, it is clear that he can not be the leader of a unified Syria. The problem is that there is no easily identified person who could be acceptable to all factions. In addition, there are powerful factions that are linked to jihad. I really do not see how the Middle East could become less volatile in the near future. It is not clear how the US military could "fix" this problem.

[actslikeacarrot]

37. All war is bad. Period.

It's bad for the troops that fight it, the families of the troops, the civilians that are caught in the crossfire. The word you are looking for is JUSTIFIED. Their are justified wars and non- justified wars, and even the justified wars maybe ain't.

[Capt. Obvious]

38. I can always guess which post is your's

just by reading the subject line.

How did you not work 80-20 into this post?

[Arctic Dave]

6. Maybe we should stop funding and arming terrorist

who kill innocent people and overthrow governments.

Was Syria doing this before we got involved? No.

This is all the western powers and saudis doing.

[pampango]

39. Was Syria arresting, torturing and killing innocent people before the March 2011 uprising?

If you do not think that was happening, I think you see Assad's governing style through rose colored glasses. How do you think dictators stay in power? Through force, intimidation and terror, not by telling people "Say anything you want about me." "Protest all you want if you do not like my policies." "No harm will come to you." Ordinary people know that publicly demonstrating against a dictator is usually the last thing you ever do.

It is true that many of these people tortured and killed by the Syrian secret police were not 'innocent' in the eyes of the Syrian government. Anyone who complained about the lack of human rights, elections or any sort of 'consent of the governed' was considered to be anything but 'innocent'.

When tens of thousands of peaceful demonstrators took to the street in early 2011, surely that would have been the time that a caring dictator might have said "OK. It looks like my time is up and you are ready of a more open, accountable form of government." Negotiations at that point might have led to a majority-rule, minority rights more open government as exists in Turkey. In all honesty is Assad had done that he would have been unique among history's dictators who love power more than anything. I can think of no example of a dictator who, though he still controlled the army and secret police, was willing to negotiate his own abdication.

[CatWoman]

7. thanks for starting this thread

I'm going to visit frequently to check replies.

Should be interesting.

[leftynyc]

8. Other than encourage

either the Arab League or the UN to get involved, we should do nothing.

[Lizzie Poppet]

9. Nothing.

Saddam Hussein was committing genocide, too. We intervened (albeit for actual reasons that had nothing to do with those atrocities). We all know how that worked out...

[denverbill]

21. Saddam Hussein was not committing genocide.

In 1991 after Gulf War I, he went after rebels and killed thousands. He used gas against his own people during the Iraq-Iran war. But he wasn't actively doing anything when Bush decided to invade in 2003, other than denying US oil companies access to Iraqi oilfields.

[hrmjustin]

12. Nothing at the moment because we do not know who these rebels are.

We are not God so we can not solve every problem.

[oldandhappy]

13. Others must lead.

Why always us? Other countries are completely capable of leading on this. I am willing to cooperate, but no longer willing to be the point guard. I know it is terrible there and I know what is happening in Syria is wrong and I know we have to stop trying to take care of the world. Somehow things always backfire on our good intentions. If we cannot do Head Start, then we cannot do Syria. Sorry!

[Laelth]

14. Nada. We can not afford another war at the moment. n/t

-Laelth

[Brickbat]

15. Phantom pain...

[KG]

16. the assad regime is slowly losing. let it be so.

[Xithras]

35. Actually, the Assad regime has been winning lately.

SAA units have broken through many of the major rebel blockades in recent weeks, and they overran the town that acted as the arms distribution hub for the FSA last week, capturing a massive cache of arms but more importantly, cutting off the main arms supply lines from Jordan. The FSA will now have to funnel those weapons through Iraq, which is a much longer journey over more exposed terrain where they can be more easily attacked by Assad's air forces.

The rebels have also been pushed out of Damascus completely during their last two attacks, and the government has been capturing the countryside between the cities, isolating the rebel held areas from each other. While there are still serious questions regarding Assad's ability to field enough troops and arms to actually maintain his gains, his current strategy could be a winning one.

[HereSince1628]

17. I'd say nothing... but it's too late for that.

Now it's time for us to disengage.

[KansDem]

18. Bags of cash from the CIA?

Maybe that might work!

[kentuck]

20. Oh! Like the "surge"?

in Iraq?

[Life Long Dem]

19. What should we do about Syria??

We can change the channel. Or maybe the station will change the story themselves. Like how CNN all of a sudden dropped the North Korea warmongering all together when the Boston bombing happened.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

23. Invade Palmyra Atoll, declare glorious victory, award medals, have a parade, and build a monument.

Palmyra Atoll is 1,000 miles south of Hawaii, and is a territory owned by the United States. However, as isolated as it is, it is officially uninhabited and unorganized. The U.S. military built an airstrip there during World War II, which has fallen into ruin. The atoll now is administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife agency, with the exception of Cooper Island, which is owned by the Nature Conservancy. Palmyra Atoll was the setting for a double murder in 1974 which became the basis for the novel and then miniseries called And the Sea Will Tell.

[WCGreen]

28. Grenada...

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

30. Yep. It would be a war that we might win for a change.

Although, considering the successes our latest efforts even mighty Palmyra might be a challenge.

[pscot]

24. Nada

Stay out.

[Yo_Mama]

25. Stay out n/t

[eissa]

26. NOTHING

All you need to know about the opposition is that they're funded by the Saudis. Their dirty money has spread their brand of Wahabi/Salafi Islam to parts of the world it had never existed before, and radicalized people, disrupted societies and families. Syria is now their target. A brutal, albeit secular regime, vs. jihadist. Pick your poison.

Let Norway, Argentina, or Germany handle this. What's that....they'd rather spend the billions it would take to engage in war on their own people instead? Gee, what a concept!

[JustAnotherGen]

27. If we intervened

from a Genocide standpoint - it would be the first time ever. We sat on our hands in Darfur, former Yugoslavia, Rwanda, etc. etc. etc. Not to mention the gassing of the Kurds in Northern Iraq in the early 1980's.

What would be different this time?

[WCGreen]

29. But don't youi see...

The Kurds got in the way.

[JustAnotherGen]

32. Unfortunately

So did the Armenians, the Jews, the Cambodians, etc. etc. and so on and so forth. Lest we forget one of America's hang ups about adopting the genocide conventions like 30 years after everyone else . . . our Native Americans. They just got in the way you know?


But - and my obvious frustration at our ability to act when faced with very real human inflicted horror against people for WHAT they are -


Why now?



What makes this group of folks special when we still have women and little girls being raped to death in DR Congo?

[4Q2u2]

31. Nothing

Our World shaping exercises since WWII have blown up in our faces so many times that decades later we are involved in that country fighting a war. No thanks, we have not picked a lot of winners lately.

[riderinthestorm]

33. I'd be willing for the US to work WITH other nations (who are leading the way) to set up safe zones

I'd be willing for the US to continue to provide humanitarian assistance - med supplies, food, shelter etc.

I'd be willing for the US to take part in any international efforts to reason with Bashar Assad to facilitate an orderly transition.

Beyond that?

Nothing. We don't really understand the situation since nobody can get close enough to really dissect the players, agendas, money, and outside influences.

This is one toxic mess that needs to unfold within the Islamic community itself as it sorts out ancient Sunni/Shia regional grievances. ANY participation by us will provoke massive backlash that we simply cannot afford.

Its going to be messy, bloody, and horrific for a long time to come but I believe its imperative we stay out.

[eissa]

34. Frontline did an excellent piece

on the conflict not long ago. Definitely worth watching.

"Syria Behind the Lines": http://video.pbs.org/video/2364993210

[stevenleser]

36. I talk about it in my show this week, starting at 21:26, here is a link...

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/lesersense/2013/04/28/white-house-correspondents-dinner-and-news-of-the-week

[HappyMe]

40. Nothing. We shouldn't do a damned thing.

[quinnox]

41. "Anyone who doesn't want to intervene is supporting a dictator and is heartless!"

Surprised this dumb argument hasn't been posted yet, I usually see a variant of it posted in threads like this.

[pampango]

42. "I am tired of caring about the less fortunate." "Let them bootstrap themselves out of trouble."

"In the past we tried to help and much of it did not work or even backfired and made things worse. We should stop trying and worry more about 'us' not 'them'."

Should America intervene unilaterally in any country? - No. Neither should we abdicate all caring and concern for the less fortunate in the world. The world needs to act together and we need to be a part of that united action.

Should we intervene at all with all the problems we have in our own country? - Yes. We have always had problems in this country. (Every country does.) If countries that are less wealthy than the US can be a part of united action so can we.