9.04.2013

Open Thread: What are your thoughts on American military intervention in Syria?

And before folks begin, allow me to kindly remind me you that "Open Thread" =/= "Open Season."

Intelligent, informative discussion, people - no snarking, bitching, or eye-rolling allowed.

13 comments:

  1. It is a bad move on U.S. foreign policy and economic standing. This "intervention" in Syria is a reminder of the disaster in Somalia back in 93. An expeditionary force of 20000 Marines were sent to maintain order and peace. As soon as they left, Farrah Adid the most powerful warlord at the time resumed control. In an effort to capture him a team of Delta Force operators and a company of U.S. Army Rangers were sent. The events that transpired on that mission led to the book which became a movie "Black Hawk Down". Now the Obama administration is considering sending offensive ground troops to intervene in a civil war. Afghanistan is still ongoing and there are still a contingency of troops in Iraq. I am a veteran of both Iraq and Afghanistan and have fought in major battles.The initial invasion of Iraq, the battle of Fallujah, and the surge in Afghanistan in 07. I say again, I FOUGHT in those battles. I wasn't in some cushy desk job in the military. Believe there were many. I have first hand knowledge of the desolation and death that is the product of war. I've supported the Obama administration since the beginning. I had believed in Obama's vision of peace and equality but going into Syria goes against this vision. When it comes to war the only ones who ever benefit and the big corporations. The same corporations that create this giant social-economic rift in the US.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Firstly, thank you for your service. Secondly, thank you for this insight.

      What do you think would happen after the intervention, should it transpire?

      Delete
  2. Hmmmm....that is a good question.

    For me, I wouldn't want US troops to go over there.When they were sent to Iraq, we we're OK,though I still didn't want the troops there. Now, we're really vulnerable. Many of the troops have and continue to die everyday. On top of that some of our allies like England already is against sending their soldiers (which I can understand) to Syria. Though there are other allies who said they may go with us, I could imagine how depleted they are.

    On the other hand, where also the guardian of the world. Most countries look to the United States and the look forward to us during potential war times. Obama may have told people that he wanted to take most of the troops out,but he may have to reconsider. Hopefully, I pray that no war comes from this, but there could be a possibility, especially with a man like Assad in office. Talking to him didn't work and now that those poor kids and people got killed in that gas attack, something has to be done. What I don't know and this situation is a between a rock and a hard place.If the US doesn't act, we will not look good and it will be blood on our hands. If we do act it will still be blood on out hands. Either way, it will be a problem.

    One thing I will say is that with Syria ,Obama has to really think hard and carefully about this One bad move and the world will be doomed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. M-I agree either way that he decides it will not be good. I really do not see how this situation can be handled.

      Delete
    2. I know that I might offend you, however, I do not believe that America is the guardian of the world. We should not be that. I question the notion that the our society places forth that we are a watchdog. If anything, I believe that this is a self imposed title to further our interest, regardless of how other countries feel about that. American needs to take care of itself. All of the unemployment and poverty in our nation and our leaders say that there is no money for social programs but we have money to send off missiles in Syria? America needs a real wake up call because all of the things we say we are, that we are a democracy championing for humanity, is not really the reality. Like it or not sending missiles into Syria is an act of war regardless of what talking heads say. This is war. War against a country that had done nothing to us. War against a dictator that we have worked with, supported, for over twenty years who ironically now is an enemy. War with a country, whom we and Great Britain sold those chemical weapons to. War with a country who's regime we put in place, disregarding the social ramifications in that nations society. Asad is from a ruling minority group that has been taking the resources from the majority. If President Obama strikes missiles in Syria, he should give back his Nobel Peace prize. He doesn't deserve it.
      AC

      Delete
    3. AC,

      I m not offended as I'm not for war whatsoever and while I don't think that the US should be declared as the "guardian" of the world, it's not about what I or you feel, its how they look at us.The U.S.is a superpower and a super ally.Every international war we have had, the US has been in.If countries didn't ask for for our help, it is expected for us to be in it.Syrian citizens are already asking for our help.Plus,were one of a few countries that have (or had) the weapons and man power to handle wars besides Russia and China and they have already said no to Obama already.

      I'm not condoning this crisis with Syria, however its easier said than done. I would prefer for Obama to be diplomatic about it with talks and that Assad will give it up but if we don't do anything,we still may have a big problem that possibly hurt us more than we think. Either way its a problem.

      Delete
    4. @ M: It's rather big of us to be considered the "guardians of the world" when we've consistently contributed to much suffering throughout the world. Almost all the wars we have been in these past 12 years have in some way been caused by Western intervention. False reporting of WMDs in Iraq and providing weapons and money to men like Saddam who would eventually become a thorn in the US's side, so he had to be taken out. The same is true for Latin America. We support people who at first are all for US interests, but b/c no one else is checking them, b/c we want to be the "guardian of the world" those men are allowed to run ammuk and hurt people. We let them do it to an extent and once those people step outside of their boundaries we take them out. In the case of Syria the nerve gas came from Britain.

      We don't really intervene in Egypt b/c the Muslim Brotherhood are for US interests.

      Afghanistan is fucking screwed b/c of us. They have not been this impoverished and devastated in a long time. It's not always a matter of other countries "asking" us for help. Sometimes we convince them that they cannot survive, they cannot thrive without us. That's what we did for South Korea, but of course we contributed to the split between the two Koreas. And we hurt many people in North Korea, a fucking massacre, that we have never been held accountable for.

      Wars are not random and they don't just "happen." Wars are created. They can be deliberate processes and they can also occur inadvertently but still support world powers, as has been the case for the US.

      Delete
  3. I don't see the logic in this strategy. How is violence going stop violence? I sympathize deeply for the children and the citizens under the regime, but I really believe military action is only going to escalate the situation. A convention of world leaders should be held and address Syria(if one country uses chemical warfare unchecked, then this could cause a domino effect),but an air strike with possible deployment is not the answer. Perhaps putting a blockade of trade could be effective,but I'm not a world leader.

    ReplyDelete
  4. The US is not the world police and should stop pretending under the guise of liberation. If we go there it will strictly be for military occupation, resources, and to maintain US interests among the priorities of the nation.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I'm one of those who are so confused about this situation (Not so much about what's going on but more about my own emotions). I don't really trust the media so I don't know if their hyping Syria up to get us to back the president or if the president of Syria is capable of even more heinous acts against his own people. What is the responsibility of the global community to the innocents that are being brutalized? Can we really turn our backs on a nation in turmoil? If not, how can we save the populous without adding to the blood shed? It's not an easy solution and I don't presume to know one. I'm neither pro-war or anti-war at this point. I am praying for wisdom for all of our world leaders.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I tend to echo most of the sentiments on here. America is NOT the savior/guardian/watchdog of the world. For folks not living in America right now, the job market is shit, our schools are shit, our roads are crumbling, and our Nobel Peace Prize-winning President needs to put down the drones and the missiles and fix all the shit he was elected to fix.

    The public does not back this war - and yes, it will mean war - nor does the international community. America needs to stop being that country which can't seem to learn from its own goddamn mistakes. This is a job for the UN, not the US.

    ReplyDelete
  7. In my opinion, of the major issues with the Obama administration (especially Obama himself) is appeasement. Nearly every major policy is made in the form of a compromise in order things to be accepted by everyone. Using change as his main talking point, Obama won the presidency, but change and doing the right thing clearly has never been a true goal of his. Being the first black president who didn't "rock any boats" or piss too many people off is his main concern.

    Obama has the tendency to show signs that he has the ability to do/say the "right" thing, only to pull back and take the more moderate route. He promised to be tough against Israel, and made a powerful speech concerning this during his first term...only to take a lukewarm stance toward the Israelis. We all know how he's behaved with Obamacare, nearly getting down on his knees and apologizing for wanting to create a revolutionary program, watering it down to nothing. Then, recently, Obama took a strong stance concerning civil rights and the treatment of POC in America (Trayvon Martin speech), then forgot the magnitude of the 50th anniversary of the march on Washington during his disappointing speech.

    So, it's not really surprising to me how Obama has behaved concerning Syria. Naturally, all this is compounded with the fact that the US does see itself as the world police -- when there is something to gain. We never helped the South Korea when they were bombed by N. Korea in 2011. Heck, North Koreans are living in horror, fear, and suffering everyday and no one seems to be making an effort to help them. Syrians are not the only ones suffering under a crazy person, they just happen to be suffering in a strategic spot with tons of goodies.

    The politics surround war have become so petty is clear to see how little life is valued in out so-called first world nation. Republicans wanted intervention in Syria for a long time, and now that they might get it, many of them are pulling back and saying that the president doesn't have their approval. It's shameful how they're using a potential war to mouse around with a weak-willed president and get votes.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In my opinion, of the major issues with the Obama administration (especially Obama himself) is appeasement.

      Amen.

      Syrians are not the only ones suffering under a crazy person, they just happen to be suffering in a strategic spot with tons of goodies.

      Preach.

      Being the first black president who didn't "rock any boats" or piss too many people off is his main concern.

      Let's pray the next president of color isn't so meek. I once said that Obama isn't really running this country; one look at the sheer awesomeness that is his wife showed us he isn't even running his own family.

      Obama is a pretty face with an eloquent voice. He's not the sort of leader we needed post-Bush; he's the winner of 2 presidential campaigns which were basically a variation of American Idol. The good-looking young guy with the most convincing sob story won.

      Delete

Comments are no longer accepted.

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.