Syria

[BigRedBuster]

Come to the UN with a case strong enough that it forces Russia and China to jump on board with you. Then, if they don't do anything, stay vocal but when people die, point to the UN for not doing something.

Any ideas?

 

 

Too friggen late now.

 

I hate to bust your bubble, but there isn't anything that will bring China and Russia to the side of the U.N.

Publicly you are probably right. But, if Assad becomes too big of a jack ass and turns these weapons on even more people then the entire world starts putting pressure on Russia and China and then BEHIND closed doors, hopefully they make the changes.

[carlfense]

I hate to bust your bubble, but there isn't anything that will bring China and Russia to the side of the U.N.

Basically how I see it.

[carlfense]

They obviously need us more than we need them...

They do.

[carlfense]

Stay the F*** out of Syria with even our bombs and let the world see thousands and thousands of people die because of the UN inaction. Put egg on their face.

Thousands and thousands of people dead. That'll put egg on the UNs face!

[BigRedBuster]

Stay the F*** out of Syria with even our bombs and let the world see thousands and thousands of people die because of the UN inaction. Put egg on their face.

Thousands and thousands of people dead. That'll put egg on the UNs face!

 

Carl..

 

You aren't going to change that. These people live this way. They have for hundreds or thousands of years. Sticking our nose into it doesn't change a damn thing other than it draws us into it and gives those people ammunition for hatred against us.

 

I look at this part of the world like a crack addict. You can try an intervention. We did that. They still kill each other. So...the only thing that you can do is let them go so low into the quagmire of their misery until THEY want to change.

 

Then, when they finally want to change, we will help facilitate that with peace talks.

 

It's ugly. It is sad. It is disgusting but that is the only way this gets changed.

 

I have absolutely no desire to have anything to do with it until THEY decide they want to change. Until then, they can go kill themselves. The only people I feel sorry for in this is the children. But, even them, their parents are the ones who choose to not make the necessary changes in who they support politically.

 

EDIT to add: Every time they kill a thousand people we need to be at the UN showing them the evidence and saying.....this happened because YOU didn't do anything.

[zoogs]

I think the most compelling reason for refusing action without the UN is the damage it would do to the U.S. image.

 

If we go that route, what are we going to get, though? Attaboys? Thanks for doing the right thing? No -- sneers and snickers at the 'historic Western retreat', a loss of U.S. credibility and influence, a lack of respect for U.S. resolve, and emboldened enemies.

 

Not that I don't find it very distasteful to start wars because - as Jon Stewart put it - we're in the 7th grade. I just don't think there is compelling benefit from a foreign relations standpoint of backing down.

 

I agree, though, if our case is so good, we should be able to shame the world for not supporting our case. It seems as if a growing consensus is beginning to reject Putin's (what may be soon-to-be embarrassingly) dismissive claims regarding Assad's culpability. And yet they don't support action without U.N. cover, a position I find to be of political expediency more than the moral standing they might claim. As long as this debate is a strategic, political fight for U.S. influence on the international stage, I hope we win.

[HuskerLuke]

For those interested, here's a whip count of the House on this issue. It's.....not going to pass the House. 39 in favor, 223 opposed at the moment. Edit---sorry I don't know how to resize something on here.

 

[JJ Husker]

I think the most compelling reason for refusing action without the UN is the damage it would do to the U.S. image.

 

If we go that route, what are we going to get, though? Attaboys? Thanks for doing the right thing? No -- sneers and snickers at the 'historic Western retreat', a loss of U.S. credibility and influence, a lack of respect for U.S. resolve, and emboldened enemies.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought we had already suffered all those negatives (sneers, snickers, loss of credibility and influence, lack of respect, & emboldened enemies) by doing the opposite and acting on our own or with too small of a coalition. Isn't that what we've been told by the dems and Obama for 6-8 years now? How is bombing Syria going to garner or salvage any respect for the US?

 

We're not the world's police (at least we shouldn't be). It's high time some folks figure out that they can't have their cake and eat it too. If the international community can't get behind it, then let them suffer the consequences of their inaction instead of us suffering the consequences for acting.

[Junior]

I'm curious, out of the Republicans opposed to intervention in Syria, how many were pro-strikes on Iran a year ago?

[HuskerLuke]

I'm curious, out of the Republicans opposed to intervention in Syria, how many were pro-strikes on Iran a year ago?

 

That would be really hard to figure out since there were never any votes on it. But I guarantee every single Democrat in support would be opposing it if Bush was in office. Politics are very much in play right now on both sides, though on issues of war and peace, they shouldn't be.

[BigRedBuster]

I'm not a republican but I was against any Iran attack by the US.

[zoogs]

I think the most compelling reason for refusing action without the UN is the damage it would do to the U.S. image.

 

If we go that route, what are we going to get, though? Attaboys? Thanks for doing the right thing? No -- sneers and snickers at the 'historic Western retreat', a loss of U.S. credibility and influence, a lack of respect for U.S. resolve, and emboldened enemies.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought we had already suffered all those negatives (sneers, snickers, loss of credibility and influence, lack of respect, & emboldened enemies) by doing the opposite and acting on our own or with too small of a coalition. Isn't that what we've been told by the dems and Obama for 6-8 years now? How is bombing Syria going to garner or salvage any respect for the US?

 

We're not the world's police (at least we shouldn't be). It's high time some folks figure out that they can't have their cake and eat it too. If the international community can't get behind it, then let them suffer the consequences of their inaction instead of us suffering the consequences for acting.

 

I agree that we did but that was probably due to the lack of WMDs in Iraq and not the fact that we didn't go in with the UN.

 

The let's not be world police angle is one I'd support if it was in US interests. I used to consider this more of a moral question, but now I'm seeing it as a purely strategic question. I think there are many out there who do want the US to be the world police -- indeed, the US is the world's lone superpower and the chief global leader. Any international action taken by anyone could scarcely be led by anybody other than the United States. This may not always be true but it's a position that would benefit us to preserve.

 

The Russians would surely love to see us dealt a humiliating blow in that regard. But, yeah. Me, personally....I don't have much stomach for war.

[EbylHusker]

We need to support the side that ends up winning. That's the most important thing.

[strigori]

We need to keep the F out of Syria. There is no 'good' side in their messy civil war, which has taken a heavy religious factional turn. Its the same old song and dance in that dark ages part of the world, Shiite vs Sunni. Keep the F out. Whoever wins is going to be a tyrant, no way around it. Until the region decides religion has no place in a government, the ONLY way to make peace is with glass parking lots.

[walksalone]

Come to the UN with a case strong enough that it forces Russia and China to jump on board with you. Then, if they don't do anything, stay vocal but when people die, point to the UN for not doing something.

Any ideas?

 

 

Too friggen late now.

 

I hate to bust your bubble, but there isn't anything that will bring China and Russia to the side of the U.N.

Publicly you are probably right. But, if Assad becomes too big of a jack ass and turns these weapons on even more people then the entire world starts putting pressure on Russia and China and then BEHIND closed doors, hopefully they make the changes.

 

Russia was one of Syria's biggest backers during the cold war, and Assad won't get that far because Israel won't let that happen, because they'll take upon themselves to eliminate the problem...