I'm curious. Syria?

posted 3 years ago in The Lounge
Post # 5
Member
9412 posts
Buzzing Beekeeper

@Laurenskii:  It’s interesting that you said, “if no one does anything.” Why is it up to outside countries to do anything? I’m absolutely not trying to be rude, I’m just genuinely curious. Western countries are not the world’s police and other countries do not live with the same morals and values as we do. The US is incredibly hyprocritical – they do most of the things that they bomb the shit out of other countries for doing.

I don’t believe in solving violence with more violence especially when it is none of our business. Also, given the interests of Russia and China this could start another world war…and for what? To tell other countries that they are “bad” and have to live as we do or else? I know it isn’t a black and white issue, but there comes a point when the US should take care of its own problems first and stop throwing stones when they live in the biggest glass house I’ve ever seen 😛 

Post # 6
Member
4513 posts
Honey bee
  • Wedding: October 2013

There’s no easy answer. We can’t do nothing, but who wants to start a war? In a perfect world we could just send in some seals or green berets and pluck out that mad man. No matter what we do we’ll be criticized.

(I’m not Russian)

Post # 8
Member
463 posts
Helper bee
  • Wedding: December 2014

Post # 9
Member
53 posts
Worker bee
  • Wedding: June 2013

…I should go get some popcorn 🙂

I’m against war, that is all I have to say and yes, I’m Russian.

Post # 10
Member
463 posts
Helper bee
  • Wedding: December 2014

Post # 12
mswallabyBee
2070 posts
Buzzing bee
  • Wedding: November 2012 - Oak Tree Manor

I’m generally against war and violence of any kind, but from what I’ve been reading, the major motivation behind the targeted attacks is to discourage use of chemical weapons around the world. The world (and by that, I mean the members of the UN GA) has assembled conventions and signed treaties banning the use of chemical weapons – which can be much deadlier to innocent bystanders than AK-47s and other weapons commonly used in war. So the argument goes, by sending a signal that the U.S. and its allies will not tolerate the use of chemical weapons for any reason, this will save more innocent lives in the long run.

I’m still trying to read about it and get caught up on the issues, but the Washington Post mentioned that the Clinton Administration carried out similar strikes on Iraq in the 90s when Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons against his own people. I was a little too young to know about what was going on then so I’d be curious to hear if older bees thought that that move was effective or not.

Post # 13
Member
9137 posts
Buzzing Beekeeper
  • Wedding: November 2013 - St. Augustine Beach, FL

Anthropology grad here. It’s not right for countries to get involved in domestic disputes occuring in other countries.  Would the U.S. want/allow the same to happen if another country bombed us for executing criminals under the death penalty (which most of the civilied Western world opposes and finds to be cruel and barbaric)?  I am a born and bred American and even I can see the hypocrisy.

Post # 14
Member
334 posts
Helper bee
  • Wedding: September 2013

I’m Russian (but live in the US)… also posted in another thread. The situation in Syria is extremely complex, and just reading headlines won’t get anyone far in understanding it.

I generally believe the US should not be in the business of being the world’s policeman. 

Part of the problem with Syria would be, if we do bomb, who exactly are we helping? The rebel forces aren’t united, and some of the better funded ones are al qaeda. Plus, if this is really about stopping a dictator from using chemical weapons against his people, bombing will do nothing. You can’t destroy the supplies without affecting tons of collateral damage (in the form of more civilian casualties). Also, why did the US suddenly start caring? Assad has been mercilessly killing his citizens using “conventional” methods for at least 2 years. I think the figure is about 200K. So, we’re saying that’s okay? As long as you kill your people in a way we don’t think is too horrible, we’ll leave you alone? There needs to be some consistency. Unless the US just stays out, there’s always room for hypocracy.

If it’s about regime change, for it to last, it needs to be natural – ie not the US dictating who the next ruler should be. When the US interferes, it does not go smoothly (ex: the rest of the region).

One last point: there have been reports that the UK sold some chemical weapons to the region (maybe they’ve been debunked, I’m not sure). Is the US going to bomb London now? Could you even picture that happening? How can the US go around saying it’s okay to bomb those people for doing bad things, but not these people? It’s ridiculous.

Post # 15
Member
334 posts
Helper bee
  • Wedding: September 2013

@Mrs. Wallaby:  The US also used chemical weapons after the Geneva convention was signed. If that’s really the reason, the irony is astounding.

Post # 16
Member
2992 posts
Sugar bee
  • Wedding: May 2014

The US has no money to feed the homeless – many who are veterans. The Syria conflict has nothing to do with US national security. We should NOT be involved at all.

Leave a comment


Sent weekly. You may unsubscribe at any time.

Find Amazing Vendors