Syria and WMD's
The latest in news from the region. The weapons are in play; have been for a while now, but it's been acknowledged by the US. Last time the US acknowledged a chemical weapons operation of this magnitude, we gave Iraq thirty days to disarm, and they mailed everything to Syria (that worked out well). What should we do now? The Syrian rebels are pledged to Al Qaeda, and Assad massacred his own people with chemical warheads.
Know where that's NOT happening anymore? Baghdad.
Bear in mind when skimming the Politico that this is, in fact, the guy (Kerry, I mean) who was 'for the Iraq invasion before he was against it,' so the moral indignation isn't really a commitment.
With this happening every week:
The Iraq story was not a success. In fact, let's leave it out altogether.
And while people could have known that throwing bombs on a place filled with sectarian conflict would not solve anything, this seems to be even more obvious in the case of Syria. Assad used to be a friend of the west but this is becoming very difficult with the civil war. The anti-government movement in Syria that started peacefully has been completely hijacked by countless different factions including defected army people as well as various islamist factions. On the other hand, the west now finds it virtually impossible to support a man who has been killing his own people by the thousands. There really is no clean solution. If any western nation interferes, there will be more anti-western sentiment. However, there is of course a moral aspect. Can we justify standing by and doing nothing?
EDIT: Removed an article that was in fact three months old. Failed to notice that for some reason.
Which is why I fear that whatever we do now would be too litle, too late. Right from the beginning, we should've known that this civil war would drag out for a long time. And past experience - and basic logic - could've told us that a war always drives people to extremism. And guess what, that happened! Now we essentially have three choices left, none of which will actually lead to good results.
Originally Posted by Automatic
1: Support Assad. After what he has done, this is essentially a big no-no.
2: Support the rebels. This would've been an option before, but by now the 'rebels' for a good part consist of outside factions.
3: Do nothing. Whichever side wins will likely end up hating the West. (Not to mention it's highly unethical to just stand by and watch thousands of humans being killed on both sides.)
In other words, whatever we do, we will lose.
Honestly, I feel that the Western world is at least partially responsible for letting it get out of hand this badly. If we interfered earlier, there's a good chance that we didn't have to pick between two extremist parties.
It'd be lose for America no matter when we would have participated.
We'd either be opportunist conquerors (I cannot quote but I believe that was the term used to define America in regards to Afghanistan and Iraq) or Cowards for not doing anything. Atleast the world can now see us as Pussies.
Yea go America... JUST KIDDING FUCK YOU GUYS.
How it always turns out.
Pretty much my response to everything as well, I've said before. I don't know that we can walk away now that the 'red line' has been crossed.
Originally Posted by Neobullseye
Simple. Do nothing. There is nothing unethical about letting a country slaughter itself. This constant projection and forcing western moral beliefs onto them is part of the reason they hate the shit out of the west to begin with.
Except that chemical weapons aren't considered immoral by the west alone. >_>
Originally Posted by Kadaeux