Poll: syria is in chaos

[Thyunda]

The Lockerbie bomber wasn't even proved guilty.

Yeah right. I won't be so naive as to ask if you have any evidence for that wild claim.

Then when places started rebelling he cut his ties and refused to play ball with the West anymore.

Only after they picked the side of the rebels and began pushing for a mandate to intervene, so again: No sign of any oil interests.

Economically, the best option would've been to say it's an internal affair, and let Ghadaffi slaughter the rebels. At the time the French and Britisch struck the first strikes on the army sent to Benghazi, that was only a few hours away from starting. The relief army and the rebels first clashed right outside Ras Lanuf, the oil harbour, and the rebels were smashed. Brega had fallen easily mere hours laters, and the army was on the march from there to Benghazi. According to what I read, when the first French airstrikes brought the column to a halt, the spearhead of the main column was past Qaminis and at the outskirts of Benghazi itself. If the strikes had been 12 hours later, the rebels would've been defeated.
The rebels in Misurata had lost too, were in hiding and only resurged after Ghadaffi had to spread his army thin and desertions began to increase later on.

When the west interfered, Ghadaffi had basically already won, and still they picked the side of the rebels. The only possible motivator for that is a genuine belief in preventing war crimes and bringing down bad regimes.

So where's the economic profit in picking the side of the loser whose political ideas are unknown, over a dictator who's already won and is giving all the oil you want?

Anyway, helping out the Syrians in some way would make more sense than half the things we're wasting money on.

Definately true, but you try explaining that to socialist parties (no Americans, actual socialists) and other naive pacifistic groups. There were demonstrations even against the peacekeeping missions in Iraq and Afghanistan here, and many believe is isolationism, and somehow all armed conflicts on the world will magically fix themselves.

Again: that's not my opinion, but it is the political reality which ensures there's not a chance of a decent intervention taking place.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-18162464

Key quote. "The prosecution case held water like a sieve."

 

[TheVioletBandit]

I didn't really need an example for my comment, but thanks anyway.

Sorry, maybe I should have explained it more clearly so as not to confuse you. You said it doesn't matter whether the US does good or bad because people insist on hating them. This makes it sound as though the hate is irrational or unjustified. I was arguing that that's less because people are intent on hating the US regardless even when they are doing good, and more because even when they claim they are doing "good" they are really just shitting all over everything and calling themselves heroes. Hence, I was refuting the part of your claim where you suggested the US has ever done good.

Would you say you understand now?

Yeah, I knew what you were implying. I was utilizing sarcasm.

 

[Don Savik]

Innocent people dying in another conflict somewhere that doesn't directly affect us. Yes its sad, but its nothing new. As stated before, its a civil war, were just going to have to let it go until someone higher up (not any superpowers, like the UN) get involved. And even if they do its not a guarentee it will stop. A militaristic approach from either side is not the option. Putting guns in the hands of the rebels is just as bad in my opinion and just escalates the problem.

We really can't do anything unless we want to be viewed as intrusive militaristic assholes and want to make even more enemies.

I know I'm going to get flamed because I should apparently be more emotional about this, but if I got wrapped up in every world conflict ever and picked sides over who I think is the victim, I would go mad within a week. Its just too much pointless stress that isn't any of my business because I can't do jack all about it. I'm one man dammit, I can't save the world.

 

[Don Savik]

You lot know about Uganda, right? That shit's been going on for years, and makes the thing in Syria look like a pub brawl.

Off course I care about Syria, I just find it weird that the Uganda thing goes on for so long without anyone ever mentioning it.

Its all about what's popular at the time.

*cough* kony2012 *cough*

[sub]not saying.....just sayan[/sub]

 

[Al-Bundy-da-G]

'We' should do nothing.

Western governments however can do something.

Wait... what? Didn't the US just leave Iraq because people were up in arms about them interfering in other countries? And now you want them to march into Syria? I'll just leave this here...

 

[Supertegwyn]

'We' should do nothing.

Western governments however can do something.

Wait... what? Didn't the US just leave Iraq because people were up in arms about them interfering in other countries? And now you want them to march into Syria? I'll just leave this here...
Snipped][/quote]
I mean 'we' (as in the Escapist) can do nothing because we have no power.


It was a little joke, you know.

 

[Dr. Pepper Unlimited]

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.

This ^

Every time we try to do something in this region, we get flak for it. Some of what we do is good, some is probably not very beneficial. It's a mixed bag, but we have so many issues at home that need addition, manpower and money that we shouldn't even touch this one. Remember that sinking economy? Yeah, it's still in the toilet.

We have our own issues, let them deal with theirs.