Syrian Civil War

[DasFuchs]

One pilot is worth the lives of 10,000 Syrians?

I find that ironic. The guy that hates the US playing world police is now getting upset because the US doesn't want to play world police

[Old Viking]

It's the Mideast, for crissake.  It's what they do.  What they've always done.  Leave 'em alone.  How would you like it if someone tried to take baseball away from us?

[Goonerboy]

I was fully in favour of the UN going into Libya. It wasn't the US, the wasn't the UK and it wasn't france who were acting as world police. It was the world police acting as world police.

I don't know as much about the situation in Syria, but if it's the same as the Libyan one, there's no reason to watch the slaughter continue.

[Lt. Fred]

One pilot is worth the lives of 10,000 Syrians?

I find that ironic. The guy that hates the US playing world police is now getting upset because the US doesn't want to play world police

I'm not saying I agree with intervention. I'm saying Art's argument against it is amoral and idiotic.

[Witchyjoshy]

I would object to the USA jumping in by themselves without being asked.

However, if the United Nations wishes to act in this matter on Syria's behalf, then the USA has a responsibility to do so, along with the other nations.

[Fpqxz]

And now Amnesty International is accusing the Syrian government of war crimes, according to the BBC (warning, graphic video footage)

I understand the reluctance of both the United States and the United Nations to get involved in Syria.  After all, Iraq and Afghanistan did not work out very well.

Unfortunately, this may be the type of situation that happened in Rwanda 20 years ago.  The international community was too scared to step in and stop the violence, and the UN's efforts turned out to be too little too late.  The final result was genocide, refugee camps, and the destabilization of the region.  And since nobody learns a lesson the first time, it happened again in Darfur.

Obviously, the parallels between Rwanda and Syria are limited, but that does not mean that the repercussions will not be similar.  Already thousands of people have been killed, and hundreds of thousands of refugees have fled the country, mostly to neighboring countries with limited capability to accommodate them.  And there is always the danger that if the UN fails to act in an official capacity, others (Iran, Russia, maybe even China) will step in and do it themselves, risking the initiation of a proxy conflict.

Basically, we're damned if we do, damned if we don't.

[kefkaownsall]

Russia helping the rebels would be awful. 

[Fpqxz]

According to the Daily Telegraph, the Free Syrian Army (the primary rebel group) is now meeting with U.S. Dept. of State officials in hopes of getting material assistance against the Assad regime.

Libya Part II, anyone?

[largeham]

Russia helping the rebels would be awful.

How so? Surely it couldn't be worse than the US, though the Russians might do more to stamp out any Islamist influence if only to weaken the insurgents in Chechnya.

[kefkaownsall]

Russia helping the rebels would be awful.

How so? Surely it couldn't be worse than the US, though the Russians might do more to stamp out any Islamist influence if only to weaken the insurgents in Chechnya.

Cause that would mean Russia is playing both sides of the conflict attempting to create a much longer war.

[DasFuchs]

One pilot is worth the lives of 10,000 Syrians?

I find that ironic. The guy that hates the US playing world police is now getting upset because the US doesn't want to play world police

I'm not saying I agree with intervention. I'm saying Art's argument against it is amoral and idiotic.

I don't see it as idiotic at all. One of our guys dies in a war for some asshole leader to take power from another asshole leader, I find that unacceptable.
Syria wants a new asshole to lead them, let them do it themselves. It'd be like your country loosing someone to help people in the US toss Dubya and put Cheney in charge.

[m52nickerson]

Basically, we're damned if we do, damned if we don't.

This sums it up nicely.  We get involved and we are seen as perpetuating war and interfering with other countries and regions.  We don't get involved and we are seen as letting innocent people be slaughtered when we have the power to stop it.

 

[Sylvana]

Basically, we're damned if we do, damned if we don't.

This sums it up nicely.  We get involved and we are seen as perpetuating war and interfering with other countries and regions.  We don't get involved and we are seen as letting innocent people be slaughtered when we have the power to stop it.

That is a large part of the problem. However, I think part of that perception comes from the US's history of just randomly getting involved in other countries. If the UN agrees to intervene in Syria then all security counsel nations have a responsibility to assist. That would mean that other nations as well as the US will be assisting. This wouldn't be like Iraq where the US gave the finger to the UN and invaded regardless.

[Lt. Fred]

One pilot is worth the lives of 10,000 Syrians?

I find that ironic. The guy that hates the US playing world police is now getting upset because the US doesn't want to play world police

I'm not saying I agree with intervention. I'm saying Art's argument against it is amoral and idiotic.

I don't see it as idiotic at all. One of our guys dies in a war for some asshole leader to take power from another asshole leader, I find that unacceptable.
Syria wants a new asshole to lead them, let them do it themselves. It'd be like your country loosing someone to help people in the US toss Dubya and put Cheney in charge.

I don't think it is acceptable to argue that a single American life is worth more than a few thousand or tens of thousands of Syrians.

[DasFuchs]

One pilot is worth the lives of 10,000 Syrians?

I find that ironic. The guy that hates the US playing world police is now getting upset because the US doesn't want to play world police

I'm not saying I agree with intervention. I'm saying Art's argument against it is amoral and idiotic.

I don't see it as idiotic at all. One of our guys dies in a war for some asshole leader to take power from another asshole leader, I find that unacceptable.
Syria wants a new asshole to lead them, let them do it themselves. It'd be like your country loosing someone to help people in the US toss Dubya and put Cheney in charge.

I don't think it is acceptable to argue that a single American life is worth more than a few thousand or tens of thousands of Syrians.

It is when the reason that person dies is to put another dictator in charge that's no different than the one before. It's a waste. Both that one person and those thousands of Syrians

That is a large part of the problem. However, I think part of that perception comes from the US's history of just randomly getting involved in other countries. If the UN agrees to intervene in Syria then all security counsel nations have a responsibility to assist. That would mean that other nations as well as the US will be assisting. This wouldn't be like Iraq where the US gave the finger to the UN and invaded regardless.

If the UN does, I'd like to see most of the outside force be provided by other countries instead of the US being the up front nation