Syria

[azbackpackr]

Does anyone think we need to get involved in Syria? If so, why? I've kind of stayed away from the news lately, but I do read The Week magazine, weekly. Anyway, I'm very worried about this Syria thing. My son is on a ship right now I suspect I know where it's going, although no one is saying.

I am generally inclined to think we should let them fight their own battles. If anyone disagrees, I will listen. I am not vociferously opposed, I just don't get why does the US have to police certain civil wars (and, very glaringly, not police others, such as the horrific atrocities in Africa which have been occurring for decades)?

[Jim]

I essentially feel this is no place for the US, and the local Arab or whatever states should be stepping up. I know there are those bizarre Islam factions that come in to play, and that complicates things. Still, why does it need to be us, the US? It doesn't it shouldn't, and getting involved is probably a mistake.

[gummo]

Does anyone think we need to get involved in Syria?

No

If so, why?

How can we fix Syria if we can't fix Detroit?

I just don't get why does the US have to police certain civil wars (and, very glaringly, not police others, such as the horrific atrocities in Africa which have been occurring for decades)?

We only care about countries that have oil or that neighbor enemy countries. Normally, we would go into a country, place a dictator in power there and pay the dictator millions of dollars to do what we say and to keep the people poor, so our companies can exploit the country of its resources. Not sure if we'll do this with Syria, tho.

[Jim]

Hey, we do that for more than just oil. Ever hear of Bananas?

[azbackpackr]

I once grumpily referred to my host country, while living in Costa Rica, as a "dirty little banana republic." But I got over it, since it really isn't true any longer, at least, not about the bananas. It is a dirty little country, but I liked it anyway. Other countries grow more bananas now.

I posted a similar question about Syria on another kind of forum today, and got the same responses from the same kind of mix of liberals and conservatives. In fact, I read on MSNBC online today that only 9% of Americans support this notion of attacking Syria. And some online readers pointed out, that while nerve gas attacks are ghastly, so would be missile attacks, or any other kind of attacks that kill a lot of people.

[Sredfield]

This may get me in a heap o' trouble, but what the heII:

"When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I wasn't a Jew.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out."

I don't like the idea any more than anyone else, but if not us, who? When barbarians run loose, what can you do?

[SuperstitionGuy]

I don't like the idea any more than anyone else, but if not us, who? When barbarians run loose, what can you do?

But which side are the barbarians? We hear so many conflicting stories about who is responsible for the chemical attack(s). Who do you believe.

By the way for those of you younger folks that weren't paying attention to the war with Iraq years ago. Remember Saddam Hussains chemical weapons and manufacturing facilities that we never found. Well, if you recall, airborne intelligence recorded massive truck convoys departing Iraq and going to Syria just before our attack and I don't believe they were carrying twinkies out of the country!

[Jim]

Was this the same intelligence that reported massive underground palaces and training facilities for Al Qaeda? Also, there is a difference between Hitler and Nazi Germany, and Syria. Why didn't we invade Iraq in the 1980s, when Saddam was gassing Kurds, instead of 20 years later? Things haven't gone real well in Libya or Egypt, maybe we ought to stay out of all of it, and not be in another Iraq?

[CannondaleKid]

:SB:
@Sredfield I hear ya Shawn, but this is not our fight.

An irrevocable fact of life is when you have a civil war, it follows that many people will get killed. 1,000 killed by gas? Assad has killed 100,000 by bullets and bombs and they're just as dead.

No matter which side we may want to support (from my understanding some covert support has been provided the rebels), it's still a losing proposition for us, so I say we should stay well away.

A limited strike is not the answer and I'm adamantly against boots-on-the-ground! As much as our politicians want to spread their power, the US is NOT the unilateral policeman of the world and we should stop trying to be.

As long as Russia is involved we should stay out of it...
Remember who we supported in Afghanistan against the Russians? The Taliban among others.
The UN cannot do anything because Russia blocks everything that may hurt Assad.
Russia's ONLY naval base outside of the original Soviet Union is in Syria, so they are NOT going to let Assad get taken out.
Russia also sells a lot of military stuff to Syria and Russia really like the cash coming their coffers.

This is very likely a war that will go on for years and years... It's like Lebanon, their civil war went of for 15 years ('75-'90) and even now 23 years later, they are STILL trying to get back in some semblance of normal life.

So, just what does the US think we will accomplish? Assad will not give up his power, there is no single rebel group to even make peace with, so the fighting will continue.

When the US had our civil war other nations wanted to sell stuff to one side or the other (or both) but they stayed out of the conflict because it was none of their business. I say we should do likewise.

Bring our troops home and place them on the border!

[beterarcher]

I miss the Cold War, all you had to worry about is being instantly incinerated. Being the only World Power left kind of blows. Everybody wants us to take care of everybody's mess and then condemns us when we do.

[Bradshaws]

The bottom line is the almighty dollar bill. If this was a humanitarian issue we would have done something in Africa years ago like azbackpackr said. If the mission were to ease human suffering we would have been in Burma or North Korea. These politician and their news agencies package and sell their story to make money...that's it! It's been quite a few years sence we shot off some of those million dollar bottle rocket off our ships and I'm sure their manufacturer is itching to make some more.

If there is a war that can be resolved by throwing money at it, it's HUNGER!! But no one makes money saving lives, just taking them

[Outlander]

This thing might blow up into something much bigger than the U.S is prepared to fight, igniting the entire Middle East into open war.

Syria is not a patsy nation, nor are they without powerful allies. It will not end like our adventure in Libya, where the U.S regime changed Gaddafi with ease, leaving him dead in the back of a pickup truck. Expect Syria to hit back at U.S targets at home and abroad. That is what war is. The FBI is busy tracking Syrian expats here in the U.S., but it might be too little too late. The southern border is wide open and just about anybody can get into this country. I got past the vaunted Yuma sector last fall, by myself with no spotters or professional help. Enemy combatants can do the same, or even better, employ the drug and human smugglers to get them in at a modest price of $20,000 a head, guaranteed entry.

So are these combatants "terrorists"? Men fighting in a war against a enemy at the far side of the world? No. They are soldiers. If we start this war they will find a way to get here.

Expect the price of gasoline to triple, whether there is a legitimate shortage or not, speculators will see to it that the price goes up the roof, the economy will tank again, unemployment get worse, etc. etc.

I hope Congress votes it down.

[Alston_Neal]

There is no Syria on the Mogollon Rim, which makes it even that much more prettier.
I for one totally support "boots on the ground", especially if they are being worn by McCain and Flake.

[CannondaleKid]

:SB:
The White House has been releasing satellite video of the ebb and flow of the Syrian conflict for a long time.
So, now that Obama claims we have satellite video of a missile attack on August 21st into Damascus but it cannot be released because it is classified. Ok, lets see now... all the other satellite video wasn't classified and was released to the public, so why are they putting the lid on this one?

Call me whacky or a conspiracy theorist, but it still makes me wonder if Obama has so fallen in love with his personally authorized drone strikes, killing terrorists without a second thought to collateral damage that... hmmm, what if it was one of OUR drones that dumped the sarin gas so Obama is able to pull off a George Bush on us?

Maybe he wants us in a war with Russia through the rebels as our surrogates. (And just how did that work out after we supported the Mujaheddin/Taliban/Osama against the Russians in Afghanistan? Not so good, huh?)
But using the rebels as surrogates won't work because there are something like 7 or more rebel factions who are fighting amongst themselves as well as Assad, and MAYBE one of them MIGHT be moderate to the US once they were in power but that's doubtful.

But, in the end... no matter what the reasoning, IF YOU DON'T want the US fighting a war in Syria, NOW IS THE TIME to call/email your Senators/Representatives and the White House to keep out of a conflict that is not ours!

P.S. If you WANT us in the conflict, that is surely your right so be sure you let your representatives know that. (Then feel free to join up and get a free sight-seeing trip to Syria and do some boots-on-the-ground hiking up close and personal.)

[beterarcher]

IF YOU DON'T want the US fighting a war in Syria, NOW IS THE TIME to call/email your Senators/Representatives and the White House to keep out of a conflict that is not ours!

I've been doing that for about two weeks now. There is usually a box to check if you want a reply, I check it and no replies yet. Go figure.

[CannondaleKid]

There is usually a box to check if you want a reply, I check it and no replies yet.

From my experience over the last few years, when I filled out the form on McCain's website it was no shorter than 4 months and over 6 months before receiving a response. But even worse, NOT ONE of the responses had anything to do with the reason for each of my concerns.

So this time I'm using McCain's Congressional email address: senator_mccain@mccain.senate.gov

[beterarcher]

this time I'm using McCain's Congressional email address: senator_mccain@mccain.senate.gov

Me too, Thanks.

[Tough_Boots]

So this time I'm using McCain's Congressional email address: senator_mccain@mccain.senate.gov

oh yeah... I bet you get a different outcome :roll: Its not your communication method that's your problem-- it's your wallet.

[beterarcher]

@Tough_Boots
No reply yet.

[Jim]

Tell him you are are high up in Raytheon.