patches70 wrote:What reasons for intervention are you giving, Juan? Because we have a responsibility to stop Assad? Even though what Obama is proposing will do no such thing, he's claiming that it will only be limited strikes. That the administration is not using the strikes to remove Assad, but rather to punish them for (supposedly) crossing Obama's "Red Line".
On the other hand, there are a crap load of reasons
not to launch strikes.
1. The US people are
overwhelmingly against getting involved. (Hows that democracy thing?)
2. Obama does not have Congressional approval to strike Syria. (He needs it, the Constitution is quite clear on the matter).
3. Obama doesn't have UN approval to strike Syria. (and he ain't gonna get it either).
4. The Syrians are likely to fight back*. (See below)
5. Striking Syria will cause attacks upon Israel and lead to a widening of the war. (Right now the violence is contained within Syria. By all means, let's expand that!)
6. Striking Syria damages our relationships with Russia and China. (Probably not a good idea).
7. There is evidence that Syrian rebel factions are the ones launching the chemical attacks. (There have been others, striking that we don't seem to remember that it was already found out that Syrian rebels have already used chemical weapons, caught red handed. That's why the US doesn't want an investigation of this latest attack, because it just might be learned that it wasn't Assad or the Syrian government that launched the attack at all).-
http://www.wnd.com/2013/08/video-shows- ... -in-syria/8. The Saudi's are eager for the Assad regime to be toppled, and they are using the US to do. (The US shouldn't be anyone's lap dog, not the House of Saud, not the Israeli's).
9. Oil prices will skyrocket. A good thing for those invested, but for the rest of the people, not a good thing at all. (Since we aren't going to be taxed to fund these wars and police actions, we'll pay through other means. This hurts those who can least afford it).
10. The Syrian rebels are backed by the very people who attacked the US on 9/11. (By all means, let's help terrorist organizations take control of another country).
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/worl ... n/2075323/and-
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/com ... 86680.html11. A lot of innocent civilians will be killed with our "limited kinetic strikes". (Who cares about them right? So long as we get "the bad guys", a few innocents along the way is no big deal).
1) There isn't a single person in this thread who is informed about the Syrian conflict, except for perhaps the Kuwaiti. And I only say that because he's aware of the factions.
2) He doesn't need it. He only needs its for "war."
3) Waiting for UN approval is Morally Unethical. We waited for UN approval to defend Kuwait, because we could afford to. We waited for UN approval to protect Bosnians against ethnic cleansing, and it was wrong. They died by the hundreds so we could make sure we got all the signatures in order. If we're going to wait for 100,000 more people to die, then who are we defending? The UN isn't the highest moral authority; it's not designed for world peace or protecting human rights. It's designed to impose the will of the members of the UN Security Council on the rest of the globe. The UN is arguably useless for saving lives. So I find it irrelevant in situations like this. Syrians gathered peacefully to protest for more human rights, and Syria's dictator bombed them. Why is the UN supporting his leadership? They're irrelevant.
Letting people die until we wait for permission to save their lives is just not very ethical.
4) Let them fight back. All we're there for is what the French were here for in 1776; to negate their technological advantage. Thusly it'll be a ground war with Assad's Army and Hezbollah on one side, and the FSA and splinter groups on the other. I sincerely doubt that the US is just going to throw billion dollar planes at Syrian samsites. This is just Sabre rattling.
5) No it wont. That doesn't make sense from any perspective. Attacking Israel just gives all of Syria's enemies what they want, while ensuring that Russian and Chinese media begrudge Syria for it's stupidity.
In every single thread you guys are like "Russia and China, Russia and China...." but they've never done anything hostile when you guys have said they would. Nobody wants a global war or economic catastrophe.
6) Who cares? Actually Chinese and Russian opinions of the USA have been steadily rising in the past decade, according to gallup polling. Besides this, the Chinese economy is dependent on the American economy, and they're dependent on the US fleet to protect the world shipping lanes for their cheap goods.
7) The video is bunk. It opens with "God Bless Syria, Al-Assad"
Al Assad is the "president" of Syria. It's propaganda.
There's no reason for the FSA to attack Civilians at all. The FSA was founded by Syrian soldiers who abandoned the army when they were ordered to attack civilian targets. So why would they attack them now? Yes, there have been war crimes committed by the FSA, mainly summary execution. But in response to this problem, the FSA restructured itself under a new command structure, and has allowed quite a lot of transparency with journalists and the UN. Remember; the FSA has no political goals aside from democratic elections. Assad, meanwhile, has a media blackout inside his borders. That's how Marie Colvin was killed.
8. The Saudi's pledged the heaviest weaponry first, and they're the ones who were funneling surplus weapons to the FSA from the start, so at least they are putting their money where their mouth is. And anyway, this is not an argument for why it's morally wrong to help the Syrian people.
9) If Saudi Arabia supports US aid, they can suppress oil prices if they choose.
However, if they choose not to I don't care. I am not a Libertarian. I would pay higher gas prices if it meant saving lives.
10) Maybe they are, maybe they aren't. It's even more complicated than that. But Assad has been torturing political prisoners since becoming president. We transported al-Qaeda members there to be tortured during Bush's presidency. al-Nustra is there, Hezbollah, and 30 or more other groups. No matter what, the Assad Ogliarchy's time is running out. The FSA is the only group involved with a chance to take complete control of Syria, and they also happen to be the only one that wants democratic elections. Their numbers are larger than all other groups combined, they only lack the technology. Just like the US in 1776. By not helping the FSA we will be helping these actual terrorist groups seize their corner of Syria from which to launch attacks against America and it's allies.
11) That's
your position? 100,000 people have already died and you're still arguing that we do nothing. I'm the one borrowing the line from Patton here saying let's put an end to this sh*t, save some lives, be true to ourselves, and keep some friends.
You have a little homework to do, though.)
