Should the United States intervene in Syria

[Al-Faisal]

I don't see why there needs to be a competition between the Saddam-era and the occupation-era to decide which was worse. Saddam ruled and it was terrible. Some say that his regime killed 240,000 people since 1979, but those numbers are just speculation. Saddam fell and the ensuing war was terrible. Standards of living plummeted every further, safety went out the window, and at least 100,000 civilians died in the fighting (but it's possible that the real body count is even higher) and there's been nearly a million refugees. It's been one long train of suck. It's right to criticize the invasion, but wrong, I think, to make excuses for a dictator while doing so. I honestly don't think that's what you were doing, however.

Thank you. I am having difficulty typing properly to make sense. I apologize for confusion. I am not trying to excuse President Saddam Hussein, but trying to point out the pain and misery caused by the war was worse to many than the reign of previous government. Saddam's actions do not excuse the abuses of the the Bush regime.

[Fellrike]

I don't think putting American or NATO troops on the ground in Syria would be a good idea. I'd rather see the Saudis and the other Gulf Arab nations take the lead. Some elements of the Syrian resistance would resent the presence of Westerners in the country. Our Arab allies, however, have armed and funded them from the beginning, and are more likely to be trusted. They'll be better able to influence the Syrian insurgents, to ensure that whatever regime is formed to replace the al Assad dictatorship will be friendly to our interests and politically stable.

[Renegade Island]

Who died so the people of Iraq could participate in free and democratic elections, have access to variety of independent TV and radio channels and newspaper, who have liberty to voice their opinion, assemble and found organizations and political parties.

You oppose all things. Why? Why do you hate the freedom that the Iraqi people have achieved?

Because the Arab Spring came anyway, and all this death by America could have been avoided or mitigated. It was not America's place or their job, yet they came and committed atrocities and called them liberty and freedom.

You don't know or understand any of these things because you live in a distant (Fin)land and have no connection to the places involved except the fantasies you develop for them.

Seriously, that argument?

Why don't you ask the Iraqi's how they feel about the USA?

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/ ... -iraq-war/

edit: to hippostania, in case that wasn't clear.

[SD_Film Artists]

You both are.

You complain at Hippostania's attidues towards the middle east, and yet you chose to define a complicated war in a single picture as if it's that simple, as if you're saying that everyone is like that. Spouting the typical cry of "Imperialism" while I suspect that its' just code for your xenophobia or anglophobia.

I do not mean to define the conflict with a single picture, but I use it to show his black and white view is not that simple. I am not xenophobic or Anglophobic at all. I am attending university in the United States and have a love of much British history. Anything negative I say I intend as against their current or recent governments and their actions taken in Iraq.

If you are American or English and I have offended you I offer apologies and hope you accept.

But Hippostania seems to genuinely treat peoples of Iraq likes stupid baboons in need of upraising by America.

It generally only makes things worse if you debate extremism with yet more extremism.

And no personal offence was caused.

[Al-Faisal]

It generally only makes things worse if you debate extremism with yet more extremism.

And no personal offence was caused.

I will leave the debate for a while then. I should not enter threads where my passions will heat my words, but it is sometimes difficult. Thank you for saying something.

[Madistania]

I have been hearing a lot of talk lately on both NSG and other forums in which some people said that the U.S. should intervene in the Syrian Civil War to support the rebels. Personally I am against the idea because I feel that the United States shouldn't be intervening and acting like the world police. The world slammed the U.S. for the Afghanistan War, Libyan Civil War, Iraq War, and etc so I feel that is best that the United States doesn't intervene in Syria because all it would accomplish is cause more anti-america bashing and people calling the U.S. imperialist. But what are your thoughts?

This is a difficult one. An intervention could lead to a worsening of the situation, particularly in the absence of ground troops.

On the other hand standing back while the Syrian regime possibly uses its sizable chemical weapon arsenal on its own people killing hundreds of thousands or maybe a million people sets a precedent that other similar regimes will catch on to in the future.

Then this is against the backdrop of a changing Middle East, do you roll with this change or stand against it?

[Of the Free Socialist Territories]

I don't think putting American or NATO troops on the ground in Syria would be a good idea. I'd rather see the Saudis and the other Gulf Arab nations take the lead. Some elements of the Syrian resistance would resent the presence of Westerners in the country. Our Arab allies, however, have armed and funded them from the beginning, and are more likely to be trusted. They'll be better able to influence the Syrian insurgents, to ensure that whatever regime is formed to replace the al Assad dictatorship will be friendly to our interests and politically stable.

You'd rather see the Saudis leading a liberation of Syria? Given what they did to Bahrain, I wouldn't trust them as far as I could throw them.

That's not to say that America should be allowed to deploy military force unilaterally.

[Divair]

No.

[SD_Film Artists]

It generally only makes things worse if you debate extremism with yet more extremism.

And no personal offence was caused.

I will leave the debate for a while then. I should not enter threads where my passions will heat my words, but it is sometimes difficult. Thank you for saying something.

Entering threads that you have a passion in isn't a bad thing per se, it's just good to remember to stay objective and stick to the forum rules while doing so (not that I'm insinuating that you broke any rules); As a passionate supporter of Autistic rights, I remember when I got a warning level in an Autism thread after it got a bit heated.

[Freedom Liberty nation]

I think that we should not intervene and cause more problems we can't just go invade country's when we feel like it and set military bases and tell them ok this is the government you are going to have. For an example what if some county decided to set up their military bases here in the u.s and started telling us what to do. I'm share we would do something about it and before we just go into war we should try and fix the problem and communicate we are just to involved I think we should be on more of a defense mode more then always on the attack.

[Divair]

I think that we should not intervene and cause more problems we can't just go invade country's when we feel like it and set military bases and tell them ok this is the government you are going to have. For an example what if some county decided to set up their military bases here in the u.s and started telling us what to do. I'm share we would do something about it and before we just go into war we should try and fix the problem and communicate we are just to involved I think we should be on more of a defense mode more then always on the attack.

Isn't this the third time you posted this? Stop deleting it and re-posting it.

[Fellrike]

I don't think putting American or NATO troops on the ground in Syria would be a good idea. I'd rather see the Saudis and the other Gulf Arab nations take the lead. Some elements of the Syrian resistance would resent the presence of Westerners in the country. Our Arab allies, however, have armed and funded them from the beginning, and are more likely to be trusted. They'll be better able to influence the Syrian insurgents, to ensure that whatever regime is formed to replace the al Assad dictatorship will be friendly to our interests and politically stable.

You'd rather see the Saudis leading a liberation of Syria? Given what they did to Bahrain, I wouldn't trust them as far as I could throw them.

That's not to say that America should be allowed to deploy military force unilaterally.

I don't want the US to deploy military force in Syria. But American involvement doesn't have to mean putting a task force ashore: there are other things we can do to help the FSA, such as offering satellite intelligence, something we alone are in a position to provide.
I really doubt the Saudis and Gulf Arabs want to deploy land forces to Syria either. But they might decide to use their air power, to ground al Assad's air force. The regime's uncontested control of the skies has been its principal advantage since the beginning of the uprising. Also, they can maintain contacts with the rebel leaders, providing them with arms and supplies, advice, intelligence and training. I don't know of anyone else capable of providing this timely and needed support (Turkey's Milli İstihbarat Teşkilatı will have Arabic-speaking assets operating inside Syria, of course, but I doubt they'd be able to move about and work as freely as fellow Arabs). And if their assistance can end this conflict before it spills over into Iraq, Jordan or Lebanon, and before al Assad decides it's time to use the mustard gas, it's worth thinking about.

[Rio Cana]

And why does Turkey want Patriot missiles on its border with Syria. Is someone planning to attack them or what. Do you think there is a plan to enlarge the war which would could get Russia involve. If Russia was to get involve then having those patriot missiles would make sense. Against Syria no, since why would the current Syrian government want to pick a fight with Turkey when there plate is already full. Unless, Turkey thinks the Syrian Freedom fighters would fire a missile into Turkey to get them involved in the war.

Patriot missilies are not for Syria. The target in the background is Iran, and Turkey is being used as a station for this job.

Has far has I know, the ties between Iran and Turkey are good. So having those missiles pointed against Iran would show them that Turkey does not trust them thus possibly souring relations.

From 2011

The latest statistics from Iran and Turkey show that economic relations between these two neighbors have expanded at an unprecedented rate over the past three years.

From earlier this year.

Iran and Turkey enjoy sustainable and friendly diplomatic relations despite some geopolitical differences, an Iranian deputy foreign minister said.

[Choronzon]

Not unless Syria attacks one of our allies.

[Pope Joan]

I would like to intervene on behalf of Assad.

He and his kin are a great friend of the Christians, and the Shiites.

The "rebels" are great friends of Al Qaeda.

[Choronzon]

He and his kin are a great friend of the Christians, and the Shiites.

And Iran.

The "rebels" are great friends of Al Qaeda.

Only some.

Last I checked, propping up tinpot dictators who slaughter their people was one of the main reasons the Arab world hates us.

[BushSucks-istan]

Sending more people to die in another useless war? No thanks, the last two were stupid enough.

[Gordano and Lysandus]

Here we go...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-20650582

[Free Tristania]

Here we go...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-20650582

(SARCASM ON)

Ah.. I am so surprised. I never saw that coming that we would be go to war in Syria in order to make the fatcat industrialists and the bankers even richer..

(/SARCASM OFF)