Jump to content

Military Action on Syria: Aye or Naw?


Magic
 Share

Recommended Posts

So, unless you've been living under a fairly substantial rock for the last 2 years, you're probably aware that sh*t has been hiting the proverbial fan down in Syria. Things seem to have escalated a bit recently though, with allegations of chemical weapon use on it's civillians coming from parts of the West.

 

Dave Cameron, backed by his Forgein Secretary William Hague, called for a vote in Parliament on whether to undertake military action, which would probably involve air strikes as opposed to an Iraq style troops invasion. Cameron lost the vote however, and came out looking a bit silly.

 

The American's it seems however, are pressing ahead with plans for military intervention, judging by this article on the BBC:

 

A US Senate panel has approved the use of military force in Syria, in response to an alleged chemical weapons attack.

 

By 10-7, the Committee on Foreign Relations moved the measure to a full Senate vote, expected next week.

 

The proposal allows the use of force in Syria for 60 days with the possibility to extend it for 30 days. It prevents the use of US troops on the ground.

 

President Barack Obama is battling to build support at home and abroad for military action.

 

Despite Wednesday's vote, the bill's ultimate fate in the wider Senate is unclear. And the US House of Representatives must also approve the measure.

 

'Credibility on the line'

So far, only 21 senators have said they support or are likely to back the resolution, according to a tally by ABC News.

 

Thirteen have said they oppose or are likely to oppose the resolution, while 66 votes are undecided or unknown.

However, those numbers are expected to shift as the language in the resolution changes, the White House and its congressional allies apply pressure, and lawmakers hear from their constituents.

 

Earlier in the day, France - whose government has strongly advocated intervention - held an extraordinary debate in the National Assembly, though MPs will not vote on the matter as the country's president can mobilise the military without their backing.

 

The government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad is accused of using chemical weapons against civilians on several occasions during the 30-month conflict, most recently on a large scale in an attack on 21 August on the outskirts of Damascus.

 

The US has put the death toll from that incident at 1,429 - though other countries and organisations have given lower figures - and says all the evidence implicates government forces.

 

At a press conference on Wednesday in Stockholm, Sweden, President Obama said: "My credibility is not on the line. The international community's credibility is on the line.

 

"America and Congress's credibility is on the line, because we give lip-service to the notion that these international norms are important."

 

Mr Obama said he believed the US Congress would approve intervention, but stressed that as commander-in-chief, he had the right to act in his country's national interest regardless.

 

 

The situation is kinda complicated by the Russian stance, who are against the use of Military without UN approval and Putin has been close to the regime in Damascus in the past.

 

What do you think? Would you back British or American military action in Syria? Or do you think that we should stay out of their business?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your guy on Facebook is an idiot.

 

I wouldn't mind a bit of military action, but it has to be a whole UN thing, at least on paper, it can't just be America leading the way, because that would be a P.R. nightmare. Let everyone go in, under the U.N. flag, as an official U.N. mission, put peacekeepers in, have an election, get out, sort of a Yugoslavia kind of deal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your guy on Facebook is an idiot.

 

I wouldn't mind a bit of military action, but it has to be a whole UN thing, at least on paper, it can't just be America leading the way, because that would be a P.R. nightmare. Let everyone go in, under the U.N. flag, as an official U.N. mission, put peacekeepers in, have an election, get out, sort of a Yugoslavia kind of deal.

 

Aye, that's what I thought. Yes voters for the Scottish referendum are having a field day with Cameron trying to take us into another war and he's one of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, the international community needs to act like an international community, and the UN needs to do its ****ing job. A massive part of the point of the UN is to ensure WMD's like chemical weapons aren't used.

 

Otherwise, the US and the UK should just tell the UN to **** off like the pointless, useless, toothless waste of money it is and leave the world to sort its own shit out, by and large. At that point military action in Syria would only be if the situation threatened our security.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But what do you do when a few nations funding them so no. No the un is good for somethings but not this its down to each country to act or not act. It would be nice if the un would do it but when russia and china sit on the security council nothing will happen so. Yes to acting but with un if possible but alone if needed
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Russia's exact and total reaction will be

 

http://www.marxist.com/images/stories/russia/Vladimir_Putin-World_Economic_Forum.jpg

 

And then it'll be back to beating up gay people and cooking bootleg heroin like usual.

 

Is it wrong that I'm thinking of making that my new desktop wallpaper?

 

On topic, I really don't know enough to make an informed opinion. Like, is there actual evidence of who fired these chemical weapons? Who would take over if the Syrian government was deposed?

 

I dunno, part of me thinks that if the Syrian government did use chemical weapons on it's own people then they need a kick up the a*s, but then I'd be reluctant to get involved without some kind of concrete evidence. I don't think anyone's prepared to take a politician's word for it anymore since we got stung with the whole "Saddam Hussein can nuke you in your bed in less than 15 minutes" bullhonky last time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Explain

 

Make me....

 

Nah kidding. A totally non-interventionist position is fundamentally flawed. As decent human beings there should always be a point where we prepared to intervene. Blanket saying we should not get involved if indeed a highly armed regime is systematically using chemical weapons on its own citizens is just ignorant.

 

If you wanted to put some caveat on what conditions need to be met before you'd consider intervention then that's one thing. Saying "F*ck it, it;s their problem" isn;t.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because it's nice to help people?

 

The Libyan Revolution, the Korean War, the Kosovo Crisis, the Bosnian Crisis, the Second World War, the Gulf War, the Sierra Leone Civil War, the Northern Mali Conflict, Operation Just Cause, Operation Uphold Democracy... wars of intervention work, and they make the world a better, more stable place in the long run. The only major wars of intervention that have gone wrong have either been because the mission itself failed (Bay of Pigs, Somalian Civil War) or because the intervention itself was dishonest (Vietnam, Guatemala).

 

Also, because it's kind of the law. The use of chemical weapons is an international war crime.

Edited by John Hancock
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Erm... yes? You're saying Libya was better as an extremist Muslim dictatorship that openly supported and funded terrorist attacks in Britain, Korea was better when North Korea was in charge of the South too, Kosovo and Bosnia were better when all the Muslims were being slaughtered, Poland, Germany, Austria and Czechoslovakia were all better under Nazi occupation, Kuwait was better as part of Iraq, and Sierra Leone was better as a warlord run anarchy? Don't be silly.

 

I'm assuming you didn't entirely think it through, but you basically just said the world would be a better place with Colonel Gaddafi, no South Korea, Hitler, a Nazi Empire, no Jews left in Eastern Europe, no Muslims left in South-Eastern Europe, no Kuwait, an oil rich Saddam Hussein through the 1990s, and a state of constant, unending warfare in West Africa.

Edited by John Hancock
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm assuming you didn't entirely think it through, but you basically just said the world would be a better place with Colonel Gaddafi, no South Korea, Hitler, a Nazi Empire, no Jews left in Eastern Europe, no Muslims left in South-Eastern Europe, no Kuwait, an oil rich Saddam Hussein through the 1990s, and a state of constant, unending warfare in West Africa.

 

Yeah of course that's what I said.

 

Hitler/Nazis is a no brainer for obvious reasons. But my opinion is that this country, America , Europe is too quick too police the world. As soon as there is a bit of unrest somewhere the West thinks it has the right to intervene. If you can actually say that the Korea's, Iraq, Afghanistan, Kosovo, Libya and others are all better of with our intervention then you are the one who hasn't though it through

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd say Kosovo is definitely better off after intervention.

 

People aren't being routinely shot in the streets anymore, and that's just for starters.

 

I agree that the UN shouldn't overstep it's boundaries and start policing every little thing that happens across the globe, but to not step in when thousands of people are dying for no good reason is a sh*tty state of affairs.

 

It's the equivalent of watching someone get the sh*t kicked out of them, knowing full well you can step in and make it stop, but not doing anything because it "isn't my problem". Sitting by and knowingly allowing something awful to happen can sometimes be just as bad as doing that awful thing yourself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you can actually say that the Korea's, Iraq, Afghanistan, Kosovo, Libya and others are all better of with our intervention then you are the one who hasn't though it through

 

So you're confused. Neither the invasion of Iraq, nor the invasion of Afghanistan were interventions, they were invasions, the clue's in the name, which is why I haven't once mentioned them as examples. No one said anything about invading people, so take both those examples out of here.

 

For the rest, you're either being really dense on purpose because you know you're wrong, but you can't back down, you don't know what you're talking about, or you're completely insane.

 

Do you think South Korea deserves to exist, or do you think it should be part of North Korea, at internationally recognised shit hole? If you picked the first option, you support military intervention, because, without it, North Korea's successful invasion of South Korea before the war started would have gone unchecked, and no more South Korea.

 

Do you think the government of Yugoslavia had the right to used genocidal tactics to force the country's entire Muslim population to move to Albania, leading to over 10,000 civilian deaths, and the forced homelessness of almost a million people based entirely on their race and religion? If you don't support that, then thank the NATO intervention that stopped it and tried all those involved for war crimes.

 

Do you think the independent nation of Kuwait deserves to be absorbed into the Iraqi Empire (an Empire with a proven track record for genocide, ethnic cleansing and war crimes) for no reason other than it's oil reserves? If you don't, then you support intervention, because that's how the Gulf War started. Iraq invaded Kuwait, and the rest of the world got involved to save it.

 

Still don't think I've thought it through? Still think all those places would be dandy utopias without military intervention? Do you honestly think North Korea is a better place to live than South Korea? Because that's what you're saying. A Korean War without intervention means no South Korea. Do you think Kuwait would be a better place to live under Iraqi occupation? Do you think Kosovo was a better place to live with literal racist death squads killing tens of thousands of people in less than two years? Do you think Sierra Leone was a better place to during a civil war that killed over 50,000 people before the British Armed Forces stepped in and stopped it?

 

You act like people are doing this because Syria's a bit of a dump. This isn't Iraq, this isn't Afghanistan. I don't know if you've noticed, but there's already a war going on. You don't want to upset the beauty and peace of Syria, a place where over 100,000, 100,000, people have been killed in the last two and a half years, a country in which three million people have been made homeless by violence in the last two and a half years, a country in which over two million people have been forced to leave the country due to violence in the last two a half years, a country in which 130,000 people are under arrest for "political crimes" or have simply vanished?

 

Don't talk nonsense.

Edited by John Hancock
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...