Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Themeiwanttobe

U.S. Intervention in Syria

Recommended Posts

I think being offline for that long should purge the debate category, seeing as the topics as of recent haven't been the most thought-provoking. What's you're take on Syria? Is the use of hard power by the U.S. a justifiable measure against the use of chemical weapons?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please no. Because that means we'll end up there too, regardless of what the House has voted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm going to say no :o Because, you know. We don't need to do things like:

1) stretch our military far and wide in pursuit of objectives with at-best tangential connection to our national interests

2) strain the voting public's already thin support for American military activities that are in the national interest

3) further destabilize the international status quo by toppling yet another Middle Eastern regime and further alienating dear old Russia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm going to go with "no," though I haven't been keeping up that well. But as I see it, whenever political leaders decide to police another country, they end up helping the country become worse later on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But of course he will intervene, and probably against Congress' wishes.

A President has to have some sort of "legacy", right?

I'm not feeling too confident about the curtailing of our own Chief Executive, mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People seem to be so certainly against this... Have they forgotten Kosovo and Ruwanda? That said, I'm not sure that there should be intervention either...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
People seem to be so certainly against this... Have they forgotten Kosovo and Ruwanda? That said, I'm not sure that there should be intervention either...

Maybe they remember Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Kuwait, Bosnia, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Guatemala, Granada, Libya, Iran, Honduras, Panama, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, the Persian Gulf, Brazil, Argentina, Cuba, etc etc too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't personally believe that hard power is a justifiable measure by the United States, however I'd call for a U.N. Security Council reform and more talks with Russia and the other members of the council to find out what the best possible way of fixing this is. After all, a missile strike against the regime would be an independent agent trying to advocate for established U.N. collective law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't personally believe that hard power is a justifiable measure by the United States, however I'd call for a U.N. Security Council reform and more talks with Russia and the other members of the council to find out what the best possible way of fixing this is. After all, a missile strike against the regime would be an independent agent trying to advocate for established U.N. collective law.
I have more respect for Miley Cyrus than I do for the U.N.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have more respect for Miley Cyrus than I do for the U.N.

Especially in this situation. What we have here is individual countries openly rejecting the laws that the U.N. has already established and the U.N. Security Council is supposed to abide by, that's why some sort of reform is needed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Especially in this situation. What we have here is individual countries openly rejecting the laws that the U.N. has already established and the U.N. Security Council is supposed to abide by, that's why some sort of reform is needed.
I also object to the U.N's purpose and existence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I pretty much have no patriotism within my bones. All those ideas of the national interest I learned about in American Foreign Policy lectures never struck a chord in my heart. The problem for me comes in when we realize there is nobody to replace Bashar al-Assad should he be removed from power. A friend from my undergrad days is of Syrian ancestry and of Roman Catholic tradition. Her family still living in Syria testifies that the rebels can be just as viscous and brutal as the Syrian Government, especially towards religious minorities. So while the Syrian National Councils shows some promise, the base of the rebellion still contains a very scary element of religious extremists. Unless the Obama Administration can guarantee that a secular social-democratic government will take control in the aftermath of conflict, the cure might be worse than the disease.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I pretty much have no patriotism within my bones. All those ideas of the national interest I learned about in American Foreign Policy lectures never struck a chord in my heart. The problem for me comes in when we realize there is nobody to replace Bashar al-Assad should he be removed from power. A friend from my undergrad days is of Syrian ancestry and of Roman Catholic tradition. Her family still living in Syria testifies that the rebels can be just as viscous and brutal as the Syrian Government, especially towards religious minorities. So while the Syrian National Councils shows some promise, the base of the rebellion still contains a very scary element of religious extremists. Unless the Obama Administration can guarantee that a secular social-democratic government will take control in the aftermath of conflict, the cure might be worse than the disease.
This is essentially my fear as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^^Yup, what Wesker said. Although I do believe in a foreign policy with a realistic idea of national interest.

Also, I know Yahoo news is pretty much the most laughable news source since the Borat: Great Nation of Kazakstan News Report, but I couldn't help but see this while I flipped past my home page:

President Barack Obama on Saturday declared that he has decided that the United States should launch limited military strikes against Syria and pressed Congress to authorize them, warning "in a world with many dangers, this menace must be confronted."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It kinda irks me that the world is talking about establishing democracy in Syria, and yet is ragging on the UK big time because our democratic political system has spoken.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It kinda irks me that the world is talking about establishing democracy in Syria, and yet is ragging on the UK big time because our democratic political system has spoken.

I think the entire quest for democracy in the middle east is pretty ironic, since we're undemocratically forcing it on the countries that don't have it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It kinda irks me that the world is talking about establishing democracy in Syria, and yet is ragging on the UK big time because our democratic political system has spoken.
I think the entire quest for democracy in the middle east is pretty ironic, since we're undemocratically forcing it on the countries that don't have it.
These criticisms appear only to be valid if we are using the word "democratic" in the Platonic and Aristotelian manner, where the notion behind the words is that of a tyranny of the majority. The word "democracy" today is mainly used in the thick sense of the term. A democracy is not merely a form of government, it is an ideal. It is a government that has free and fair elections, protects minority rights, and pursues justice. Mohamed Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood were not democratic despite being elected by the majority of voters. Majority vote ≠ Democratic in the thick sense. Perhaps one of the worst things for the Middle East these days would be majority votes, letting the people decide. The UK political system can be criticized for failing to uphold democratic values in the international sphere under this paradigm.

It is for this reason that international realists criticize democratic peace theory for being a meaningless tautology. While I do assent that it is a tautology, I do not think it is meaningless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I, for one, was exceedingly happy when the House of Commons voted against action in Syria. I only wish Obama would listen to the people for once. Not that other presidents have traditionally listened any better, just that, when the public is so resoundingly against his decision, surely an elected official should take note.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am undecided on this debate. A couple of weeks back Obama stated that if the US found out that they were using chemical weapons on their own people, then we would intervene. There was no maybe about it. Now however he is wavering. My question is, does it not make America look weak should we NOT intervene where we practically promised that we would? I would see it as if he is backing out. And if someone doesn't intervene in this situation then what of the innocent lives being destroyed?

On the other side of this, it is not our battle to fight and America has a tendency of getting into things that have nothing to do with us. We would be inevitably putting our soldiers in danger for things that shouldn't concern us in the first place. Is it really worth the loss of life for our own country? I would imagine getting into this situation would just cause another war for America as well which would only stretch our already stretched military budget.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×