Syria: What should the US do/not do?

Jonny7

Actually there were WMD in Iraq (some Western supplied) it's just that Saddam did actually remove or dispose of them

The Bush administration weren't so much lying through their teeth (I mean they fully expected to invade the country and uncover the weapons), rather they were arrogantly convinced of some pretty weak intelligence and quite consumed with their own spin.

Of course they could have just planted some WMD in the desert

There is still so much residual cynicism from Iraq and Bush's subsequent war on terror that some simply cannot comprehend a different administration is capable of acting in a way that is anything but nefarious and sinister.

Start down that road, with that mindset, and suddenly the conspiracy theories seem a lot more appealing..

DarkDusk

Jonny7 wrote: »

There is still so much residual cynicism from Iraq and Bush's subsequent war on terror that some simply cannot comprehend a different administration is capable of acting in a way that is anything but nefarious and sinister.

So you agree with killing people with drone strikes, without a fair trial? Obama is violating international law with this new version of terrorizing other countries. Killing (attempting) militants in foreign countries will increase the probability of an attack on the US, not decrease. As he heard recently, the motivation behind the Woolwich murder was the UK's foreign policy.

The US, and other Western powers, should mind their own business - whether it's in Yemen, Iraq, Pakistan or Syria.

BuilderPlumber

Jonny7 wrote: »

The US didn't fund the Taliban in the 2000's. Late nineties, sanctioned and fired about 75 cruise missiles in their general direction but no funding.

No, the US didn't fund the Taliban in the 2000s or 1990s or at any time. They DID however fund the Mujahedin in the 1980s and also Osama bin Laden's Saudi and Arab mercenaries. These at the time were the 'good guys' fighting the 'bad' commies.

The reason why al Qaeda and bin Laden turned on the US was simply because of the end of the cold war. the US and USSR improved their until then poor relations and part of the deal was the US would stop funding the Mujahedin and the USSR would stop funding and helping the communist Afghan government. Afghanistan was left to its own devices by both superpowers and fell into civil war. All funding to the Mujahedin - now broken up into rival factions the biggest 2 of which became the Northern Alliance and the Taliban - by the US was cut and al Qaeda and Taliban saw themselves with no funding (the Northern Alliance and Shah Masoud got help from Iran) so were out for revenge against the US. They played the 'Muslims being repressed all over the world' card but the real reason for 9/11 and other al Qaeda actions was personal.

Jonny7

DarkDusk wrote: »

So you agree with killing people with drone strikes, without a fair trial?

Well that's a bit of a different debate.

The drone strikes are to kill militants who are either fighting in NW Pakistan or crossing the border and fighting in Afghanistan.

The number of people killed directly or indirectly by these militants is far higher than civilians accidentally killed in drone strikes.

Islamabad milks the situation by publicly painting the US as the bad guy, but behind the scenes support the drone strikes as the Pakistan army and the country in general is seriously struggling with the militants

The major point of contention is - how much of a recruitment tool are the drone strikes in the long run? and how much of the Bush admin's war in Afghanistan and the war in terror in general has fueled this militancy?

If the drone strikes stop, more civilians will lose their lives in the short run, troops in Afghanistan will face more pressure, the fledgling Afghan security forces will have a harder fight, and so on

Also, if the drones stop, Pakistan has no rebate, no scapegoat.. they'll have to face up to the fact they literally have factories (Madrassas) that pump out young men willing to blow anyone who doesn't succumb to a certain extreme brand of Islam.

So, if you're asking me, then no, I don't support the drones, but it's a difficult one to call because I don't have all the information.

Jonny7

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

No, the US didn't fund the Taliban in the 2000s or 1990s or at any time. They DID however fund the Mujahedin in the 1980s and also Osama bin Laden's Saudi and Arab mercenaries. These at the time were the 'good guys' fighting the 'bad' commies.

The reason why al Qaeda and bin Laden turned on the US was simply because of the end of the cold war. the US and USSR improved their until then poor relations and part of the deal was the US would stop funding the Mujahedin and the USSR would stop funding and helping the communist Afghan government. Afghanistan was left to its own devices by both superpowers and fell into civil war. All funding to the Mujahedin - now broken up into rival factions the biggest 2 of which became the Northern Alliance and the Taliban - by the US was cut and al Qaeda and Taliban saw themselves with no funding (the Northern Alliance and Shah Masoud got help from Iran) so were out for revenge against the US. They played the 'Muslims being repressed all over the world' card but the real reason for 9/11 and other al Qaeda actions was personal.

I think it's very unfortunate that Massoud was killed - he seemed like one potential glimmer of hope for that hellhole.

TheSB

Obama is using the same bull**** WMD lies that got the US into Iraq. Where is the evidence?? There is just as much evidence that chemicals were used by the rebels.

He is going to support the rebels, a group insiting on the creation of a Islamic state in Syria. I have watched numerous videos of the rebels fighting, they hate democracy and they they hate America. Syria has been a SECULAR country under Al-Assad. Syria gauranteed freedom of religion, their laws were based on the French system (not Sharia), women could walk openly in the streets without being covered in a focking shroud. History is repeating itself and America will learn the the same painful lesson again the hard way.

Manach

I would hope for a speedy and fair resolution under UN auspices to the situation, but I know that it is unlikely. As for WMDs, I did honestly believe the US when these were raised as at issue in Iraq. So as I was wrong to do so then, the burden of proof would needed to be verified from a non-alligned source.

Norwesterner

Obama wants to bring in gun control in the U.S, but arm sectarian death squads in Syria.
Soon to be used on European nightclubs, train stations and hotels.
I've put Obama up there in the same level as Bush II for sheer incompetence and failure.

BuilderPlumber

Jonny7 wrote: »

I think it's very unfortunate that Massoud was killed - he seemed like one potential glimmer of hope for that hellhole.

That is very true. Up until the 1970s, Afghanistan was a peaceful and friendly country where those who visited loved and went back to. It was poor and religious, yes, but peaceful and historical. It was like stepping back into ancient Persia. Masoud was a good leader and the main threat to the Taliban. It has been said that the Taliban only tolerated 9/11 by al Qaeda if al Qaeda took out Masoud for them.

But what messed up Afghanistan and the entire Persian and Arab worlds was intervention by superpowers. The US support one lot of thugs, the USSR another lot of thugs. The arms industry which controlled both superpowers made a killing literally and moneywise. Now, we have done it also to Iraq and Libya in recent years and now Syria. God help the world.

BuilderPlumber

Norwesterner wrote: »

Obama wants to bring in gun control in the U.S, but arm sectarian death squads in Syria.
Soon to be used on European nightclubs, train stations and hotels.
I've put Obama up there in the same level as Bush II for sheer incompetence and failure.

Obama and Bush 2 did not really control the US. They are figureheads and have to fit into a system. Obama would be against a lot of things but he is not allowed to go against the system: a system where the gun and its use is a fundamental part of how America does its business internally and externally.

Even so and whoever is the ultimate decision makers, I cannot see the sense of arming these thugs in Syria of all people. Sure, of course, the US arms industry controls the government and will assassinate presidents and high up officials if necessary. BUT surely there are loads of African rebel groups and others who are not linked to al Qaeda.

By right, America and the West should stay out of Syria. Helping install a far more evil regime in Syria than Assad's seems to be what they want to do though. Is this also a kind of appeasing of blooming al Qaeda? A sort of a deal like support our bid to take over the Middle East and there will be no more 9/11s? You'd wonder. Saddam, Gaddafi and Assad are/were all enemies of al Qaeda as are some others America lists as enemies.

Hannibal

TheSB wrote: »

Obama is using the same bull**** WMD lies that got the US into Iraq. Where is the evidence?? There is just as much evidence that chemicals were used by the rebels.

He is going to support the rebels, a group insiting on the creation of a Islamic state in Syria. I have watched numerous videos of the rebels fighting, they hate democracy and they they hate America. Syria has been a SECULAR country under Al-Assad. Syria gauranteed freedom of religion, their laws were based on the French system (not Sharia), women could walk openly in the streets without being covered in a focking shroud. History is repeating itself and America will learn the the same painful lesson again the hard way.

Which "rebel" group are they actually going to back though? The US will only look at the evidence that suits them and it will be trial by media. The US back Saudi Arabia which is one of the most ruthless Islamic states around. In some ways dictators or strong men leaders like Assad, Mubarak, Gaddafi, Saddam etc kept their countries in check because since they were removed or attempted to be removed there's been civil war and anarchy in these countires. They mostly huffed and puffed but never really done much to threaten the outside world.
On WMD there's no trasparency on Americas great ally Israel's WMD arsenal yet they expect Syria to be open with them and Iran likewise. When looked at from an Arab and Islamist point of view it's easy to see the hatred toward the US and Israel
The US never backed the rebels in Cuba or other countries who liberated themselves from oppressive and corrupt governments simply because Batista was an ally who was happy to let the US have their fingers in every pie and even after 50 years they won't end the blockade because of powerful lobbyists and this is the same in Israel.
The key to the middle east is to solve the Israeli problem and get them to open up to the outside world about their WMD's (see Mordechai Vanunu for example) and to get them to withdraw from Golan, Gaza, West Bank and East Jerusalem as this will let a lot of pressure off and set about Arabs trusting Americans rather than being rightly suspicious of their motives.
Islamists will always exist no matter how much the west don't understand their system but the main thing is to give some to get some and don't try influence and interfere in every way possible.

BuilderPlumber

Dotsey wrote: »

Which "rebel" group are they actually going to back though? The US will only look at the evidence that suits them and it will be trial by media. The US back Saudi Arabia which is one of the most ruthless Islamic states around. In some ways dictators or strong men leaders like Assad, Mubarak, Gaddafi, Saddam etc kept their countries in check because since they were removed or attempted to be removed there's been civil war and anarchy in these countires. They mostly huffed and puffed but never really done much to threaten the outside world.
On WMD there's no trasparency on Americas great ally Israel's WMD arsenal yet they expect Syria to be open with them and Iran likewise. When looked at from an Arab and Islamist point of view it's easy to see the hatred toward the US and Israel
The US never backed the rebels in Cuba or other countries who liberated themselves from oppressive and corrupt governments simply because Batista was an ally who was happy to let the US have their fingers in every pie and even after 50 years they won't end the blockade because of powerful lobbyists and this is the same in Israel.
The key to the middle east is to solve the Israeli problem and get them to open up to the outside world about their WMD's (see Mordechai Vanunu for example) and to get them to withdraw from Golan, Gaza, West Bank and East Jerusalem as this will let a lot of pressure off and set about Arabs trusting Americans rather than being rightly suspicious of their motives.
Islamists will always exist no matter how much the west don't understand their system but the main thing is to give some to get some and don't try influence and interfere in every way possible.

All very true. Saudi Arabia is a worse regime than the ones in Syria, Saddam's Iraq, Ahmadinejad's Iran, Mubarak's Egypt or Gaddafi's Libya combined. Saudi and NOT Iran is the leading sponsor of Islamic rebel groups like Hamas. The US also sponsored such groups in Afghanistan when it suited.

Batista's Cuba was bankrolled by the US mafia. The US were happy to turn a blind eye to mafia activities as long as they did their transactions in Cuba and donated some of their money to political campaigns. The mafia had huge sway in 1950s and 1960s America and were more than likely responsible for killing Kennedy and controlled Johnson. Castro's Cuba ended the cosy relationship between the mafia and the Batista regime. Ironically, Castro wanted the US as an ally and was not really a communist at all until the US government (on behalf of the mafia) turned his friendship down. With no other option, Castro approach the USSR for aid and they told him that in order to get USSR aid, he would have to set up a communist government. The rest is history.

DarkDusk

This is only my observation, but it seems that the media is conditioning the public to information about Syria - it's basically mentioned on the news every day now. This is what happened in the lead up to Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya...

BuilderPlumber

DarkDusk wrote: »

This is only my observation, but it seems that the media is conditioning the public to information about Syria - it's basically mentioned on the news every day now. This is what happened in the lead up to Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya...

And Serbia/Kosovo before that! First of all, I will say that the likes of Saddam, Milosevic, Gaddafi, Assad and especially the Taliban were/are no saints but look at the double standards. Israel's aggression towards Palestinians (an ethnic group within its own borders) and invasion of Lebanon coupled with their assassinations of what they describe as 'terrorists' in other countries goes beyond what Saddam, Assad, Taliban, Gaddafi and Milosevic did in many regards.

When Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990, he went from US ally to US enemy overnight. When Milosevic started his war against Kosovo rebels in 1998, the US made up its mind to invade the following year. BUT when Israel decides to do similar, the US gives them 100% support! Surely, ALL these were acts of aggression?

True, I notice how the media set articles in motion to make people hate one regime (I remember cheering the end of the Milosevic regime in 1999) but sugar coat other aggression normally by Israel (who did the same Milosevic did to Kosovo to Palestine and Lebanon). Yes, the rich and powerful connected regimes can do anything the want!

DarkDusk

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

True, I notice how the media set articles in motion to make people hate one regime (I remember cheering the end of the Milosevic regime in 1999) but sugar coat other aggression normally by Israel (who did the same Milosevic did to Kosovo to Palestine and Lebanon). Yes, the rich and powerful connected regimes can do anything the want!

It's really p!issing me off now. Woke up this morning and went down to the kitchen and the first word I heard was "chemical". Turned it off straight away.

BuilderPlumber

DarkDusk wrote: »

It's really p!issing me off now. Woke up this morning and went down to the kitchen and the first word I heard was "chemical". Turned it off straight away.

We ALL know where this is going! America's elected figures to my mind have now power so it doesn't matter who is in office! Look at the policies over the past 25 years for example:

1989-1993: Bush Senior was president. The US/West invaded Panama and went to war on Iraq. There was no real reason for the US to get involved in either.
1993-2001: Clinton was president. The US/West went to war with Yugoslavia twice and also bombed Iraq, Afghanistan and Sudan. There was no reason for them to get involved in these other than to divert attention away from the Monica Lewinsky scandal!
2001-2009: Bush Junior was president. People had short memories it seemed and what this 'infamous president' was doing was exactly the same as Clinton! Only he had more of an excuse with 9/11. He invaded Afghanistan and Iraq and a financial meltdown obviously related to all these failed wars resulted. That Bush's wars were messier and the economic outcome far more serious made him unpopular and the voodoo doll of the anti-war movement. In reality, he was no better or worse than the others.
2009-: Obama is president. He inherited the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and added Libya to the list. Since all the previous recent presidents launched at least 2 wars during their presidency, Syria seems poised to be Obama's second war.

Prior to Bush senior, US foreign policy tended to be more docile. This was largely due to Vietnam. And fear of pushing the USSR's anger too far. The US found itself to be good at war in WW2 and thus quickly got involved in the Korean war soon after. Then, it was into Vietnam which probably kept it at bay from getting involved elsewhere. The presidencies of Nixon, Ford and Carter tended to be more moderate than previous (Johnson) and future (from Reagan onwards) ones. For once, the US had enough of war and the people hated Vietnam because too many Americans died. Recent wars have ruined the countries involved but not many US deaths. So far, the US has marketed the cause of the financial crisis as not related to the wars (when it obvious was caused by the wars) but that lie will not be able to be kept up forever. It was Reagan who began to get brave and reintroduce the US to war footings. Its invasion of Grenada was a trial run but still he favoured arming others (rebel groups or countries) to take out or at least attempt to take out (communist or troublesome) regimes in Afghanistan, Libya, Argentina and much of Africa. The arming of both Iran and Iraq by the US showed that by then, the US was not even interested in backing any side per se but keeping the arms business profitable! And since then, that's what it seems to be about: pick an enemy, paint that enemy as the worst since Hitler and then go to war (or get someone else to do the fighting)! The arms business are laughing all the way to the bank.

clairefontaine

The US should stay out of it.

Everyday I like Putin more and more.

BuilderPlumber

clairefontaine wrote: »

The US should stay out of it.

Everyday I like Putin more and more.

The US are excellent at toppling regimes (whether evil ones or otherwise is debatable).

The US are very poor at winning the peace. Most of the places that they have invaded or interfered with (Afghanistan, Iraq, Korea, Libya, Somalia, etc.) are all messes and failed states. Perhaps the former Yugoslavia is a relative success story. Many point to the success stories that post WW2 Germany and Japan became. True, they became very successful and peaceful countries but doesn't all the death, terrorism (inclusive of nuclear terrorism against the latter) and attrocities committed to get both to that status kind of cancel out the success? And it made the West no better than Stalin's USSR: another economic success built on war and domestic political dictatorial repression.

If the US went into Syria, Assad would not last a month. BUT the chaos would last years. Afterall, Syria borders Iraq and the very same people who caused the trouble there will flood into Syria along with homemade terrorists there too. Syria's problems need to be solved in other ways.

ThreeBlindMice

clairefontaine wrote: »

The US should stay out of it.

Everyday I like Putin more and more.

Putin dose seem more like a gentleman and he certainly stud his ground at the G8 against the allied aggressors of the West.

They should now consider revoking that undeserved Nobel Peace prize from Obama and handing it over to Putin instead.

Be like Nutella

I've always said America and the allies need to jump in and take Assad out before he massacres 250,000+ of his own people. That isn't going to happen for a host of reasons so we can forget about that for now, unless, Assad in a miscalculated act, orders a massive massacre which pushes the international hand and gets Russia off the fence.

100,000 have been recorded killed so far but it's probably more than that.

So barring a massive military intervention what options are left realistically?

When I realized nobody was going to jump in to get Assad out I started thinking No Fly Zone like everybody else, to let the rebels build and organize in safe areas and limit Assad's ability to inflict massacres form his jets or helicopters but after some reality checks and learning about the actual geographical and military facts on the ground there.. it isn't hard to see that creating a NFZ is one very difficult task. It would require two US carrier groups, thousands of sorties and a definite risk, in fact high probability, of losing pilots. Plus, there's no way Obama could get political support for it anyway let alone a UN resolution which Russia and China would block. Also there is the added fact that even IF the US attempted to create a NFZ they would essentially be committing to staying there until Assad collapsed which would leave the door actually open to a full invasion possibility - it's not like they could create a NFZ and then fail ? Military logic says you don't get involved unless you're willing to see it through to victory. And if they did a NFZ then we could easily see Russia and Iran back the rebels much more than now... which would turn this thing into a more violent protracted war which could last years and drain the US of resources and put their men at risk both of which they are not politically willing to do.

Also, I now disagree with the strategic idea of a NFZ on its own - I don't think it would be smart to do something half-assed like that - if you're going to go for an Assad collapse - then either do it 100% or don't do anything militarily at all ! That's where I stand now.

So No invasion (never gona happen anyway),
No NFZ (half assed idea with massive risk.. politically invalid)

So What should the US do/not do?

Fareed Zakaria of Time Mag says very simply: Turn off their money and they'll collapse !

Assad is holding on to his Alawite leaders (military, intel, Business) by a mix of bribes and threats. His military resources and those bribes and everything else is funded through his oil exports almost entirely. So turn it off and he should collapse right? Then we should see mass defections and see the regime run out of money and resources and the rebels will have more success. If it's possible to do then I say do it. Right now Assad is ready to continue to kill approx 150 per day for years into the future - this is the number he's killing right now and it seems to be an acceptable figure to the international community.

Problems:
How to protect the 2-3 million shi-ites in Syria and specifically the Alawites from being massacred after the rebels eventually take Assad down.
The problem of the rebels being hopelessly unorganized and fighting amongst themselves.
There is the growing problem of Al Qaeda growing and taking root in Syria right now which will take years to sort out.

But at least if we can turn off the money supply then Assad will be less capable of killing so many, for so long - and will eventually collapse - faster than if the international community did nothing. Arming the rebels with small arms just means it turns up the rate of killing but doesn't give the rebels any sort of decisive edge so probably means simply more Syrian civilians die. So small arms on their own makes no sense - mind you I have my doubt that this is all the US is giving them at present but let's stick to the official story for now.

The two options that are realistically left on the table if you ignore the NFZ idea are:

1) Give them more serious weapons - whatever that means for the future with extremists present among the rebel side.... if you arm the rebels with serious RPG's and night vision goggles and intel and small drones and ammo and Sat imagry and 50 cal sniper weapons - they'll cause more damage to Assads side - and then these weapons will end up in Extremist hands let's be honest - al nusra is getting its hands on the weapons as far as is reported... which is not good BUT at least you'd be hurting Assad... and it could tip the balance if done on a large enough scale.

and/or

2) Turn off their oil export machine with tight sanctions and bleed the regime dry.

It's one big clusterfuk let's be honest but there are still options available to the international community to reduce the final number of dead that Assad will be responsible for.

He can continue to kill as long as he doesn't miscalculate and do something too big or shocking which forces the international hand.... and he knows this.

Remember - the US had 180,000 troops in Iraq for 10 years and couldn't control the slaughters, the bombings and the ethnic cleansing and they were rescuing an entire population from a sadistic tyrant just like Assad. (ahem...apparently)

Right now Obama's people are playing a Real-Politic strategy of allowing Iran to funnel resources to Assad while the US adds fuel to the fire in the form of small arms to the rebels and then sits back watching this whole thing slow burn away Iran's resources which weakens their regimes position.... or so goes the logic.

Right now Obama is essentially saying:

'hell, we might get some kind of positive out of this. If we can't help the situation in any meaningful way, then let's at least weaken our enemy if possible by draining them of money and weapons and effort'

The right move is to attack Assad's source of money and give the rebels real weapons but do not get militarily involved. It's probably the strategically smart AND Moral thing to do. But right now they're doing neither and Russia is just blocking actions for the sake of a military port and so they can be viewed as tempering the US sphere of influence in a 'still-oil-important' middle east with a quickly reducing US footprint.

Proxy war bullsh1t.

Squeeze the oil exports - cut off his cash !

Amerika

It is proven we can’t fix the problems in these middle east type of countries. The US stay out of it. Let them resolve their internal problems themselves. I don’t see any benefit to the US no matter whom emerges the winner in Syria.

Be like Nutella

Amerika wrote: »

I don’t see any benefit to the US no matter whom emerges the winner in Syria.

I can understand that position alright but one of the misunderstood things about this world is that the better the outcome is for people, the masses, the resulting move from dictatorship to democracy of some sort or other... then the better it is for the US in the long term. A more peaceful intertwined reliant international framework means more business and more cooperation and continued US hegemony.

BuilderPlumber

Be like Nutella wrote: »

I can understand that position alright but one of the misunderstood things about this world is that the better the outcome is for people, the masses, the resulting move from dictatorship to democracy of some sort or other... then the better it is for the US in the long term. A more peaceful intertwined reliant international framework means more business and more cooperation and continued US hegemony.

The problem in Syria and a lot of these type of countries is the existing regime is bad but those lined up to overtake/overthrow it are even worse. In Syria, the so-called 'jihadis' or 'Islamists' are just waiting there. Perhaps, there are rebels who want a democracy in Syria but the so-called 'Islamists' will either hijack it and take over or else will get involved in a campaign of violence against a new democratic Syria which amounts to a continuation of what is going on now. Unfortunately, these types will continue fighting against Assad, a new democratic regime or whoever until they have Syria.

Amerika

Be like Nutella wrote: »

I can understand that position alright but one of the misunderstood things about this world is that the better the outcome is for people, the masses, the resulting move from dictatorship to democracy of some sort or other... then the better it is for the US in the long term. A more peaceful intertwined reliant international framework means more business and more cooperation and continued US hegemony.

Perhaps, and I thought the same until reality smacked me down. Didn’t we try to help in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya? Libya didn’t turn out so well. Much of the world condemned us for trying to help in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Taliban will probably take over Afghanistan again shortly, and they’re not so keen on us. And what is the forecast for Iraq long term? Not a whole lot of benefit for the US as far as I can see. If the international community thinks something should be done in Syria, maybe they should take the lead and leave us out of it. And do you really see much improvement for their people whether the current regime stays or the rebels take over?

Don’t get me wrong, I feel for the people of Syria, and am doing my own small part to help. We’re helping to care for a young Syrian girl until things are stabilized back over there. I just don’t think there would be any benefit to the US overall getting involved.

Be like Nutella

Fair play to you.

Ok well Iraq and pretty much everything post 9-11 is not a good set of examples for trying to do good. God knows Cheney and Wolfowitz and all those neocon lads completely hijacked the presidency with lies and fear mongering and did what they wanted no matter what anyone thought. Kosovo is a better example - actual genocide being stopped by actual righteous force ! Thank you for that one Clinton...not so much for ignoring the warnings about Rwanda til it was too late.

The point is that the world looks to its powerful strongest nation which happens to be America ...by far... which has the power to change any military situation it chooses bar none. I mean lets be honest America could actually depose Assad in 3 weeks work with 5 carrier groups and 150 F-22 Raptors, 100 Reaper drones and any number of incredibly advanced weapon platforms, Navy SEALs and any number of troops you like - 500,000, 800,000.... America CAN do this physically if it wants.... quicker and easier than anyone else in the world can. That America has chosen before to intervene on behalf of people before shows that it is willing to act unselfishly and to protect people when needs be. That's why it's helping to hunt Joseph Kony in the Congo and why it helped in Kosovo and other situations. It all depends on the climate of politics and its recent experiences which right now are specifically not conducive to launching any sort of war at all or risking any troops no matter what the cause. BUT saying that - IF Assad massacred 5000 kids tomorrow with poison gas Congress would jump up and shout - Invade - Save the Syrians - and they'd be absolutely right to - bad things happen when good people let them - type of thing. I have faith in the central heart of what it is believed to be American - I would have faith that America would jump to the assistance of any people being genocidally massacred. The problem here is that Assad has kept his killing to a perfect 100-200 per day which is just not high enough to make Congress jump up and down as they would for certain if there was a major massacre on the scale of 5-10,000 ! and that's the brutal fact of the matter - not ENOUGH people are being butchered.

The US set the bar in World War 2 by coming to our aid and stopping Hitler's domination of half the world when it didn't have to. 3000 miles away from Hitler it could've sat back and watched the massacre but it didn't... it rose up heroically and came in their millions across the sea and went to war and died in the name of those who couldn't defend themselves and for that it won the trust of those it saved. A trust hard won but easily lost.

The Syrian people on the whole want peace and democracy and do not want a hardline Islamic extremist government. Al Nusra and AQ want to turn Syria into an Islamic Caliphate and Assad wants to survive - whatever it takes. Somewhere in the middle is the wishes of the majority of Syrians and that's who the world wants to help free from tyranny and enfranchise.

clairefontaine

It's not the same America. America is broke. And have a lot of their own problems.

The world won't thank us for it. Having endured enough personal abuse from Europeans during the Iraq war, I can't say I'd be to eager to support my country shedding more of its blood.

Also I don't want to see more young American males sacrificed so war lenders like Goldman Sachs can profit.

It's a very different age from ww2. No comparison.

Amerika

Why would it be a bad thing for the US not to help in Syria? For once I’m happy for one of Obama’s lies... the one about him drawing a line in the sand, regarding Syria. There is a growing feeling here that we are damned if we do and damned if we don’t by the international community, and should take a break from world conflicts for awhile that don’t directly cause a national security. We’re broke, and can’t spend millions on every cause, especially if there is no benefit back to us anymore. God knows 10 of millions have died, and many more displaced, in Africa over the last few years because of conflicts... and nobody, and I mean nobody, does much about it or even seems to care.

clairefontaine

I'm starting to get more and more annoyed by neutral countries asking the US to do the dirty work.

While the EU continues to phase out conscription American males are still required to register with the selective service in case they need to reactivate the draft.

Europe, get your own military and stop asking America to do it.

DarkDusk

People will have their own opinions about David Icke but a lot of what he says in this video is completely true... He talks about the things the mainstream media will refuse to talk about or choose to take the other side of the argument of.

Jonny7

DarkDusk wrote: »

People will have their own opinions about David Icke but a lot of what he says in this video is completely true... He talks about the things the mainstream media will refuse to talk about or choose to take the other side of the argument of.

Opinions?

He's a grown man who believes in lizardpeople