Thread: The crisis in Syria

Originally Posted by Deborski

And I for one believe that we can defeat terrorism without attacking. Period. We have not even begun to exhaust all other diplomatic means.

This Syrian woman summed it up nicely when she bravely stood up to Senator John McCain the other day. McCain, of course, only voted against Obama's air-strike because McCain thinks an air-strike would not be enough military intervention. He favors a full-on, troops on the ground, military conflict which could go on for years (and provide plenty of money for him and his friends who invest in Raytheon and other military stocks).

She wants both sides to stop being supported by Saudi Arabia/Iran; I can imagine how the congress could get SA to stop supporting the rebels, but do you think it will be that easy with Iran? It will just become a one side street with all the dictatorships in the region supporting Assad, and of course he'll win and re-run his oppressive system one more time. By the way, this conflict might give him excuses to go after his opponents among the civilians in even harsher ways, and a lot of people might suffer just for what they think. Is that what you'd want?

Originally Posted by Eric C.

She wants both sides to stop being supported by Saudi Arabia/Iran; I can imagine how the congress could get SA to stop supporting the rebels, but do you think it will be that easy with Iran? It will just become a one side street with all the dictatorships in the region supporting Assad, and of course he'll win and re-run his oppressive system one more time. By the way, this conflict might give him excuses to go after his opponents among the civilians in even harsher ways, and a lot of people might suffer just for what they think. Is that what you'd want?

You are making so many assumptions here that I cannot keep track! For starters, you are assuming that the US actually has proof of Assad's guilt, which there is no way to know since all of that intelligence is so "classified" that even our representatives are not allowed to see it. Please refer to the article by Congressman Alan Grayson above. As for Iran, Russia still has quite a lot of influence in that country. Why do you assume that only the US wants to achieve peace? A united international effort would go much, much further towards resolving the situation and reining in both sides, than just America swaggering in like a cowboy with his gun drawn and making a bunch of threats. As for what I want? You assume a lot about that as well, which makes me wonder as to who it is not really reading the posts here. What makes you think that a US strike against Syria will not result in exactly what you describe: further retaliation against the people of Syria. That is what my Syrian friend's concerns are, in fact, and that is why she is strongly opposed to US military intervention. Since it is her family actually living over there, I respect her opinion and I do not take it lightly!

I do not, and never will, understand the kind of mindset which thinks that ONLY MILITARY ACTION can be the solution! There are a million other things we could try - but you do not even consider those things, you are just stuck on this mindset that the response MUST BE MILITARY. It's impossible to reason with someone who is so closed minded that they cannot even imagine any alternatives to military force.

Originally Posted by Deborski

You are making so many assumptions here that I cannot keep track! For starters, you are assuming that the US actually has proof of Assad's guilt, which there is no way to know since all of that intelligence is so "classified" that even our representatives are not allowed to see it. Please refer to the article by Congressman Alan Grayson above. As for Iran, Russia still has quite a lot of influence in that country. Why do you assume that only the US wants to achieve peace? A united international effort would go much, much further towards resolving the situation and reining in both sides, than just America swaggering in like a cowboy with his gun drawn and making a bunch of threats. As for what I want? You assume a lot about that as well, which makes me wonder as to who it is not really reading the posts here. What makes you think that a US strike against Syria will not result in exactly what you describe: further retaliation against the people of Syria. That is what my Syrian friend's concerns are, in fact, and that is why she is strongly opposed to US military intervention. Since it is her family actually living over there, I respect her opinion and I do not take it lightly!

I do not, and never will, understand the kind of mindset which thinks that ONLY MILITARY ACTION can be the solution! There are a million other things we could try - but you do not even consider those things, you are just stuck on this mindset that the response MUST BE MILITARY. It's impossible to reason with someone who is so closed minded that they cannot even imagine any alternatives to military force.

I do know there may be quite a few solutions to that situation, and I don't support the idea of a military strike for the sake of a military strike; what I was doing was examining one of those possible solutions, not saying there's nothing but a military strike.