Thread: The crisis in Syria

Originally Posted by eisenherz

while i agree the WMD story regarding Irak was a lie; i do believe that chemical weapons in Syria have been used. In my mind that is not a fabrication, what is not clear though is who used them.

There is no question that chemicals were used on thousands of people, so I agree that is fact. But who did it? Al-Assad or Al-Qaeda? And in the end, even if both of them did it, does it justify military intervention?

Originally Posted by Deborski

There is no question that chemicals were used on thousands of people, so I agree that is fact. But who did it? Al-Assad or Al-Qaeda? And in the end, even if both of them did it, does it justify military intervention?

hmm, Deborski (Deborah); я не знаю, что было бы правильно. трудный вопрос. in principle i would think interventions should be considered if there are undeniable human rights abuses on a large scale. for example, i think intervention in Lybia was justified due to Gaddafi's clear history of abuse; even in Irak intervention was defendable for Hussein proven and documented use of chemical weapons in Irak. the problem is the US intervened for the wrong reasons (=self-interest, oil, influence in the region, trumped up WMD stories) at the wrong time. it would really be nice if the big powers could act decisively and in unison and for the right reasons (=human right abuses). instead they try protect their own interests and ignore atrocities in countries where there is not much in it for them (eg Somalia, Sudan (Dafour), Liberia/Sierra Leone some time back, Rwanda some time back, DRC Congo, Zimbabwe (on a lesser scale)? did anybody help the Cambodians when the Khmer Rouge ran riot? who helped the Argentinians when the military junta made people disappear some 40 years ago? yip - no-one really. If Lybia had no oil reserves, would there have been an intervention? I doubt it. But should there have been one? Yes, i think so - but not for reasons of oil.

Originally Posted by eisenherz

hmm, Deborski (Deborah); я не знаю, что было бы правильно. трудный вопрос. in principle i would think interventions should be considered if there are undeniable human rights abuses on a large scale. for example, i think intervention in Lybia was justified due to Gaddafi's clear history of abuse; even in Irak intervention was defendable for Hussein proven and documented use of chemical weapons in Irak. the problem is the US intervened for the wrong reasons (=self-interest, oil, influence in the region, trumped up WMD stories) at the wrong time. it would really be nice if the big powers could act decisively and in unison and for the right reasons (=human right abuses). instead they try protect their own interests and ignore atrocities in countries where there is not much in it for them (eg Somalia, Sudan (Dafour), Liberia/Sierra Leone some time back, Rwanda some time back, DRC Congo, Zimbabwe (on a lesser scale)? did anybody help the Cambodians when the Khmer Rouge ran riot? who helped the Argentinians when the military junta made people disappear some 40 years ago? yip - no-one really. If Lybia had no oil reserves, would there have been an intervention? I doubt it. But should there have been one? Yes, i think so - but not for reasons of oil.

Exactly so! I distrust when the government claims it wants to get involved for "humanitarian" reasons. They pick and choose where and where not to be "humanitarian" - and it seems that money and oil are the real goals - and not some sort of altruistic desire to help people suffering from human rights abuses.