sambino510
Senior Member
- Jul 2, 2013
- 324
- 27
- 51
I know some have already posted about this , but I've been reading up on it for awhile and just thought I'd put in my two cents. It's just a bunch of jumbled notes, so if people say it's too hard to follow I'll reword it into actual paragraphs.
U.S. Involvement: Why or Why not?
Pros:
+ Most powerful military in the world, can likely end the conflict relatively quickly.
- However, seeing as how we are providing militia-level, minimally trained soldiers with sophisticated weaponry, this may not be the case.
+ The Sunni/Shiite Issue: Our involvement in helping defeat Assad's Shia regime will win U.S. points with the Sunni neighbors of Syria, namely U.A.E., Saudi Arabia, etc.
- This could have an adverse effect, as Iran and Hezbollah (Shia) are supporting the Assad regime, one of their few allies. Conflict in Syria becomes proxy war, U.S. vs. Iran, ruining diplomatic relations for years.
+ Most of Middle East supports rebels, thus if we support the resistance this could improve our standing with the Middle East as a whole.
Cons:
- The rebels are not necessarily "good people", and mixed in are several terrorist organizations. Thus, we have no idea where the weapons will end up.
- The government also is not necessarily full of "bad people". They are dealing with a mass uprising as anyone typically would; with brute force. If angry rioters were attacking the White House, our government would likely do the same (though perhaps not on the same scale).
- The Assad regime had diplomatic opportunities early on, but now cannot surrender in order to "save face". U.S. and other negotiators must offer way out, swallow pride. "Peace with honor"
- U.S. will seem meddlesome, inserting ourselves into a complex conflict that we do not understand, or care to understand. This can cause people to hesitate in trusting us, as well as cause them to judge the outcome of the conflict and the U.S. impact.
- Arming rebels taints the diplomacy between Assad and rebels, as unproductive as it may be. Cannot speak with the pen while waving the sword. Self-fulfilling Prophecy. Need cease-fire first.
General Notes:
- Do we justify the good guys and bad guys by the acts they commit, or how many times the act is committed?
- Hypothetically, if the rebels are responsible for 10% of civilian deaths, and the government for 90%, is that how we judge right and wrong?
-It is possible that neither side is morally "right", nor does either one represent the views of the average Syrian (war weary, tired, hopeless). Revolution is not necessarily noble.
- The U.S., strangely supports the governments of some countries sometimes, and the rebels at other times. Rebels supported in Syria, Egypt, Libya. Governments supported in Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, U.A.E. etc.
- Generally reflects political motives, specifically towards our enemies or allies. Very few interventions by U.S., if any, are genuinely selfless.
- U.S. seems, generally, to support Sunni regimes over Shiite ones. Sunni are seen as less radical than Shia, thus more in line with Western views.
- Revolution is not necessarily a noble action; often very selfish, like striking.
i.e. Whether economy is good or bad, people love to rebel, and earn more money and make gains either in material or other personal motives.
- Why does use of chemical weapons matter? Whether civilians are killed by chemical weapons or conventional weaponry, death is death. Were the first 90,000 deaths irrelevant?
Overall, American involvement in Syria will cause the conflict to mutate into something completely different than how it started. It's hard to watch human suffering and not intervene when you know you can make a difference. However, the Syrian civil war is the Syrian people's war to fight, not ours. The Syrian people will keep fighting, and fighting, and fighting, and win or lose, one day they will have the government and the country they hoped for. Many, many countries throughout history have succeeded in a revolution without the help of America, and they were better for it. The U.S. does not understand this war, it cannot afford this war, and it should not get involved in this war.
U.S. Involvement: Why or Why not?
Pros:
+ Most powerful military in the world, can likely end the conflict relatively quickly.
- However, seeing as how we are providing militia-level, minimally trained soldiers with sophisticated weaponry, this may not be the case.
+ The Sunni/Shiite Issue: Our involvement in helping defeat Assad's Shia regime will win U.S. points with the Sunni neighbors of Syria, namely U.A.E., Saudi Arabia, etc.
- This could have an adverse effect, as Iran and Hezbollah (Shia) are supporting the Assad regime, one of their few allies. Conflict in Syria becomes proxy war, U.S. vs. Iran, ruining diplomatic relations for years.
+ Most of Middle East supports rebels, thus if we support the resistance this could improve our standing with the Middle East as a whole.
Cons:
- The rebels are not necessarily "good people", and mixed in are several terrorist organizations. Thus, we have no idea where the weapons will end up.
- The government also is not necessarily full of "bad people". They are dealing with a mass uprising as anyone typically would; with brute force. If angry rioters were attacking the White House, our government would likely do the same (though perhaps not on the same scale).
- The Assad regime had diplomatic opportunities early on, but now cannot surrender in order to "save face". U.S. and other negotiators must offer way out, swallow pride. "Peace with honor"
- U.S. will seem meddlesome, inserting ourselves into a complex conflict that we do not understand, or care to understand. This can cause people to hesitate in trusting us, as well as cause them to judge the outcome of the conflict and the U.S. impact.
- Arming rebels taints the diplomacy between Assad and rebels, as unproductive as it may be. Cannot speak with the pen while waving the sword. Self-fulfilling Prophecy. Need cease-fire first.
General Notes:
- Do we justify the good guys and bad guys by the acts they commit, or how many times the act is committed?
- Hypothetically, if the rebels are responsible for 10% of civilian deaths, and the government for 90%, is that how we judge right and wrong?
-It is possible that neither side is morally "right", nor does either one represent the views of the average Syrian (war weary, tired, hopeless). Revolution is not necessarily noble.
- The U.S., strangely supports the governments of some countries sometimes, and the rebels at other times. Rebels supported in Syria, Egypt, Libya. Governments supported in Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, U.A.E. etc.
- Generally reflects political motives, specifically towards our enemies or allies. Very few interventions by U.S., if any, are genuinely selfless.
- U.S. seems, generally, to support Sunni regimes over Shiite ones. Sunni are seen as less radical than Shia, thus more in line with Western views.
- Revolution is not necessarily a noble action; often very selfish, like striking.
i.e. Whether economy is good or bad, people love to rebel, and earn more money and make gains either in material or other personal motives.
- Why does use of chemical weapons matter? Whether civilians are killed by chemical weapons or conventional weaponry, death is death. Were the first 90,000 deaths irrelevant?
Overall, American involvement in Syria will cause the conflict to mutate into something completely different than how it started. It's hard to watch human suffering and not intervene when you know you can make a difference. However, the Syrian civil war is the Syrian people's war to fight, not ours. The Syrian people will keep fighting, and fighting, and fighting, and win or lose, one day they will have the government and the country they hoped for. Many, many countries throughout history have succeeded in a revolution without the help of America, and they were better for it. The U.S. does not understand this war, it cannot afford this war, and it should not get involved in this war.
Last edited:
