Poll: syria is in chaos

[Godzillarich(aka tf2godz)]

this has been going on for months now i'm sick of the bloodshed going on in Syria

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=jdMWZApQAc4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=eYsuJwoiX7Q

what should the governments do.

 

[aba1]

Who is we? More likely than anything unless it is peace keeping and saving civilian lives I don't really think it is smart for any country to get involved in others affairs.

 

[Launcelot111]

I did enjoy how the US, the UK, and most other leading western countries all threw out their Syrian ambassadors on the same day. That was a wonderfully meaningless gesture.

 

[Sanat]

Who is we? More likely than anything unless it is peace keeping and saving civilian lives I don't really think it is smart for any country to get involved in others affairs.

This. Any militaristic action will always have bad consequences, and usually on the civilians of the area. (See Iraq/Iran/Afghanistan/etc.). Peacekeeping, civilian protection and rehabilitation should really be the extent of what uninvolved countries should do. What they shouldn't do is join in on the fighting.

 

[Supertegwyn]

'We' should do nothing.

Western governments however can do something.

 

[Nickolai77]

I think the situation fulfils all the moral requirements for an armed intervention in Syria, with there being a dictator who's killing his own people to stay in power. I do think there should be an intervention of sorts- if that should include traditional thin-blue line peacekeeping or Post-Cold War peacemaking is debatable.

However there is a serious question as to if the international community can intervene. There won't be authorisation from the UN due to a Chinese and Russian veto, and Western powers have been fighting wars of considerable intensity for the past 10 years, still have serious commitments to Afghanistan, whilst also dealing with a massive financial crisis. So i doubt the West actually has the capacity to intervene here without causing severe military over-stretch.

The thing is, Assad's probably calculated this and so he's going to continue killing Syrians to stay in power, which makes me feel sick in the stomach thinking about.

 

[BathorysGraveland]

There has to come to a time where people take responsibility for their own problems, and work towards overcoming them. Most other countries have done that, maybe soon it is time for places such as Syria to as well. Besides, when "we" try to help, that help isn't appreciated anyway.

 

[Vanitas likes Bubbles]

Hey, remember Libya? They killed the evil dictator and they are now pretty much squabbling over who will be the next one.

Circle of life my dear escapists.

 

[culpeo]

If Russia chose to use its full influence, perhaps they could persuade Assad to resign in exchange for immunity and refuge. While not necessarily a fair outcome, this may preclude military intervention and cultivate a more peaceful scenario for the transition to, and implementation of, a new government.

 

[Esotera]

You missed the option where everyone apart from Russia supports the rebels financially, and more secretly with special forces training them. This is almost definitely what is happening right now.

 

[wooty]

The west won't interfere in Syria because it has no oil, its in with the Russians and its a bit too close to Iran for comfort.

I expect a drawn out civil war with a lot of big words and mud slinging.

 

[TheVioletBandit]

I don't think The U.S. should do anything, because no matter what we do good or bad people just hate us more for it, so let them work out their own problems.

 

[William Dickbringer]

I don't think The U.S. should do anything, because no matter what we do good or bad people just hate us more for it, so let them work out their own problems.

pretty much this the world hated U.S. for trying to play world police so just sit back and let it work itself out

 

[shintakie10]

Who is we? More likely than anything unless it is peace keeping and saving civilian lives I don't really think it is smart for any country to get involved in others affairs.

This. Any militaristic action will always have bad consequences, and usually on the civilians of the area. (See Iraq/Iran/Afghanistan/etc.). Peacekeeping, civilian protection and rehabilitation should really be the extent of what uninvolved countries should do. What they shouldn't do is join in on the fighting.

"Peacekeeping" never really works because of the ridiculous restraints put on peacekeepin forces in foreign countries. It's a sad fact when people send in military forces to "protect civilians" but they literally can do jack shit to actually protect them outside of try to keep themselves between the civilians and the people tryin to butcher everyone that isn't them.

Granted this doesn't always work out that way. Libya is a weird example of a current conflict where everyone were supposed to simply be peacekeepin forces and they started goin out of their way to bomb the shit out of Libya's military.

 

[MyNameIsNowNotMyName]

Well... it's not like anyone really has the guts/reason to do anything about it, so I think it is going to go on for a bit.

 

[IamLEAM1983]

"We" shouldn't get involved, assuming "We" refers to one of the bigger First World superpowers. "We" should wait for NATO and the UN to agree to a concerted solution. Diplomacy should be privileged first and foremost, and if it turns out that there's no other choice than to ax Bachar El-Assad, then no single government should have to carry the related responsibilities.

Every official in the United Nations has been horrified by what's going on in Syria. I don't think there's any legal or moral right to just dump any executive decisions on any single world power. "We" don't need to act like we're the world's police.

And I say that as a Canadian, FYI. Not that Canada could, anyway. Our army's one of the few laughingstocks of the international community.

 

[manic_depressive13]

I'm not going to condone murder and I've never been one to cry for someone's blood, but if the rebels manage to kill him I'm certainly not going to condemn them.

I don't think the West should intervene. The Syrians already have their own government fucking them over. They don't need ours doing it too.

I don't think The U.S. should do anything, because no matter what we do good or bad people just hate us more for it, so let them work out their own problems.

That's probably because the US "helps" people with absolutely no concern for the collateral damage done to civilians.

 

[aba1]

I think the situation fulfils all the moral requirements for an armed intervention in Syria, with there being a dictator who's killing his own people to stay in power. I do think there should be an intervention of sorts- if that should include traditional thin-blue line peacekeeping or Post-Cold War peacemaking is debatable.

However there is a serious question as to if the international community can intervene. There won't be authorisation from the UN due to a Chinese and Russian veto, and Western powers have been fighting wars of considerable intensity for the past 10 years, still have serious commitments to Afghanistan, whilst also dealing with a massive financial crisis. So i doubt the West actually has the capacity to intervene here without causing severe military over-stretch.

The thing is, Assad's probably calculated this and so he's going to continue killing Syrians to stay in power, which makes me feel sick in the stomach thinking about.

You mean the US not the west not trying to stop on your points or anything.

US =/= entire western hemisphere