Why should we help Syria?

[johnboy14]

I had this discussion last night with a relative and we sort of agreed that its time we stopped being taken for a ride by some of these countries. Everytime we get involved we get burnt and end up with even more enemies. Removed Sadaam Hussein and the country is on the verge of civil war, Afghanistan is a disaster zone still, Hammas are supporting syria so we risk pissing them off and the Syrian rebels are getting help from Al-Qaeda aswell. We are guaranteed to piss someone off. I feel for the innocent people who are getting killed but a gracious thanks for saving there ass is quickly followed by a big fuck off you imperialist shits.

[Bestie]

You either die a hero, or live long enough to see yourself become the villian.

Said in a film, but it's still true. So we stand up for the innocent and we take the backlash.

[johnboy14]

Jun 17, 2013 15:57:01 GMT Bestie said:

You either die a hero, or live long enough to see yourself become the villian.

Said in a film, but it's still true. So we stand up for the innocent and we take the backlash.

It stops making sense when every country you liberate ends up becoming a mess. Removing Hussein gave the Iraqi people a chance to rebuild there country but there still fighting among themselves. The syrian rebels aren't as innocent as some people suggest, pulling someone heart out and eating it belongs in a zombie film.

[SAF_Legend]

It's such a tough topic.

Personally, if they go through a UN vote and are able to secure an agreement to "liberate" Syria... then I'd say yes. But if you think about it, the UN is only a playground for the US and to a certain degree, China and Russia. It's an improvement to the League of Nations of yester-years but in all fairness... it's weak. However, I do think the UN are still a useful organisation, and if improved, can be something better.

There are so many points to consider before you "side" with whether Syria should be "liberated" or "left alone to their own devices"

1) Propaganda - when there's civil war and chaos, it's always difficult to bring truth to light. What is really real or fake is difficult to ascertain. Ripping soldiers's hearts out, for example, can be seen as barbaric - yes - but why are they doing it? Is it a one-off by a madman among soldiers? Or perhaps emotions are running high? Or perhaps because the current regime doesn't provide the right kind of Education? For example about the big hoo-haa when some in the US army had ill-treated their prisoners as well - does that justify that the entire US army were a bunch of moral-lacking people? In such a situation, to fight against a bigger army, you require people - the more people you have, the better your chances... this means taking in people who do not share your ideals as well (but enough to topple the Government).

2) Justification - What's the real agenda to "help" either the Rebels or the Government? If everyone in this world wants to help each other, it would make Earth a Utopia. But this isn't the case because all of us are skeptics and selfish. The only reason(s) why we would side with the Rebels is because we have a political motive. Vice versa, Russia would prefer siding the Government because they think they would be a better political ally.

3) "It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried." - The cons of a democracy is that it is not as effective nor efficient as a government in comparison to a government that is headed and decided by a head figure or a committee given full authority. For example, if we were to build a stadium comparatively to N.Korea, we probably would take a longer time - but that doesn't mean that as a country they are better off than us. But this does simply mean / show it takes a longer time for democratic countries to get things done - ESPECIALLY in new democracies. Lots of people think that "liberating" a country means an instantaneous reward; unfortunately that isn't how the real world works. "Liberation" is only one and the first step. For the common man of the first few generations, this means no visible or very, very slight improvements. This and the fact that the war probably destroyed infrastructure, homes, water supplies, etc... just means that the common population of the first few generations have to suffer a worse fate than not having a war. However, the future generation might (most probably will) benefit from their suffering. That, is how deposing any current regime usually works. A transition into democracy without war is probably the best - but it is never easy to topple regimes especially one that wields military power and uses coercion.

4) If you help, don't expect a thanks or hugs and kisses. Because, let's be fair, it would be our Governments who would have decided to "help" the rebels / Syria or not. The decision does not lie with us, neither the real reason is "just to help ". What you can expect though, is when in the future our government requires international backing from the middle east, and if the government we backed during this civil war is still in power, we can have their political backing. That, is our "thanks".

5) Media. Media only reports sensationalist or popular stories. So if 1% of the population says "FUCK YOU" or if 0.001% of the population calls for a war against "Western Ideals"... it will get reported. Not the 99% of the population that says "Hey, we are free! Look at me farm." or "Look at me going to work.". For example, I remember once they were reporting about riots in Bahrain... this made me a wee bit worried for a Bahrain friend of mine. So I contacted him, and it turns out that the media were making it bigger than it had seemed. Likewise, Ronaldo saying on Twitter he hasn't signed a contract doesn't mean he is signing for us. It just means he hasn't renewed a contract that ends 2 years from now.

[Tatty]

Can the US and UK afford to let weapons fall into the hands of Al Qaeda, who essentially make up the largest faction of the rebels?

[Deleted]

Because if we don't help them we won't be able to buy knock off Nike trainers anymore

[SAF_Legend]

If the US, UK and European intelligence agencies know anything more than us and advises Western Governments to go ahead... then it's probably more advantageous in their opinion to provide support to the rebels.

Even if the West arm them up instead of intruding in the war and therefore an immediate cessation to the civil war, perhaps they are trying to make the Syrian Government and opposition factions (such as Al Qaeda sympathizers) kill themselves. Ridding opponents indirectly under the facade of "helping". Stone, birds.

The point is. If it's up to the Western governments to decide, first thing first is to topple Syrian current government... then oust opposition factions.

[Deleted]

[quote a

uthor="Tatty" source="/post/433482/thread" timestamp="1371505793"]Can the US and UK afford to let weapons fall into the hands of Al Qaeda, who essentially make up the largest faction of the rebels?
[/quote]

The US armed them in the first place

[mightyez]

if there is a threat to the world then we will get involved (terrorists getting arms)
if there are assets (oil) we will get involved
if non of the above are in play we won't

[Deleted]

Jun 17, 2013 21:58:47 GMT @cavelly2k said:

Because if we don't help them we won't be able to buy knock off Nike trainers anymore

Knock off trainers come from china not syria

[Bestie]

Or Vietnam. America should intervene over ther. . .

Wait. . .

[fletchabey]

Generally I'd prefer not to be involved, but there are lines that are crossed. For example when we acted on Libya when they started to use the airforce against civilian populations. We went in a took that out and provided support whilst not actually sending in any troops (that I recall?). Thats fine by me. Gas attacks is probably another line being crossed.

[Bestie]

We don't do it because it makes us popular, and to be honest I don't really care what the reasons the governments want to intervene for. If we can help, we should.

Not by sending our own men to fight another man's war, but in whatever way we do it.

[Deleted]

Jun 18, 2013 10:00:51 GMT fletchabey said:

Generally I'd prefer not to be involved, but there are lines that are crossed. For example when we acted on Libya when they started to use the airforce against civilian populations. We went in a took that out and provided support whilst not actually sending in any troops (that I recall?). Thats fine by me. Gas attacks is probably another line being crossed.

Lybia got 'freed' because of the following reasons;

1) Oil
2) the US Doller - as ghdaffi wanted to move onto using gold for trade instead of the doller
3) Lybia had no central bank to strangle the life out of its people like everywhere else does

[Stew]

Jun 17, 2013 16:10:20 GMT johnboy14 said:

Jun 17, 2013 15:57:01 GMT Bestie said:

You either die a hero, or live long enough to see yourself become the villian.

Said in a film, but it's still true. So we stand up for the innocent and we take the backlash.

It stops making sense when every country you liberate ends up becoming a mess. Removing Hussein gave the Iraqi people a chance to rebuild there country but there still fighting among themselves. The syrian rebels aren't as innocent as some people suggest, pulling someone heart out and eating it belongs in a zombie film.

Invading Iraq had very little to do with that sadly.