• Our software update is now concluded. You will need to reset your password to log in. In order to do this, you will have to click "Log in" in the top right corner and then "Forgot your password?".
  • Forum moderator applications are now open! Click here for details.
  • Welcome to PokéCommunity! Register now and join one of the best fan communities on the 'net to talk Pokémon and more! We are not affiliated with The Pokémon Company or Nintendo.

The Syrian Civil War Thread

14,092
Posts
14
Years
U.N. inspectors come under sniper fire

US: Assad has used chemical weapons

60% of Americans disapprove of intervention in Syria

Spoiler:

Use this thread to discuss the ongoing Syrian conflict, including but not limited to:
  • Alleged chemical/biological weapons use.
  • Possibility of US/International intervention - who, when, what kind of intervention?
  • Effect on Middle Eastern relations, specifically Iran.
  • Political implications for current administration(s).

Discuss!
 
5,983
Posts
15
Years
60% Americans disapprove? Haha, nothing's going to happen then. It's not the Cold War anymore, can't go around with the passive-aggressive proxy war thing anymore.

I don't know if anything's going to happen. If an intervention happens, I feel that regime change is the only way that it could be declared a "success". And those are really high stakes that Russia and China would not desire, but would also involve huge sunk costs without any guarantee of return.
 

Silais

That useless reptile
297
Posts
10
Years
  • Seen Jul 17, 2016
I'm so tired of our government trying to interfere with every single conflict in the world. It's NOT in our best interests to interfere in ANY conflict. Let these people deal with their problems on their own. No one appreciates it when the United States government interferes, and that reflects poorly on its people, who oppose the interference but have no power to change the government's actions.
 

OmegaRuby and AlphaSapphire

10000 year Emperor of Hoenn
17,521
Posts
13
Years
I'm cautious about beleiving the Chemical weapons attack. I was too young during the start of the Iraq war to be part of the discussion or to really notice what was going on but I have learned from it's mistakes. We shouldn't be too quick to rush into wars, especially interventionalist wars.

I hope that the U.S. and N.A.T.O keep calm, and think this throughly unlike with what they did with the Iraq war. Especially since Russia may become involved in this if we do anything...the whole region may explode more than it already has and devour the world in it's third world war...
 

Sir Codin

Guest
0
Posts
I'm with the 60% on this one. We really don't have any business interfering there, nor does Britain, France, or anyone else in NATO, not to mention a strike is not going to make Russia happy. Let Syria sort this problem out themselves. My opinion was the same for Egypt, so I don't see why it should be any different for Syria.
 
14,092
Posts
14
Years
The question you have to ask yourselves though, is that here we have a grave human rights issue, chemical weapon use on civilian populations by the Government. So it's not made up like Iraq. Do we leave them to their own devices, against an enemy the resistance cannot defeat? (Since it's probably obvious the Russians are/will help Assad) Do we help them fight back?
 

Sir Codin

Guest
0
Posts
Maybe there can be some intervention, but only after careful deliberation. This is a tricky situation we deal with. If we help the rebels, Russia won't be too pleased since they support Assad's regime. This could damage relations, which are already as of now split almost down the middle.

I don't know if there will be escalation to war if NATO strikes, but all I know for right now is there's no easy solution to this, including just staying out of it.

Keep in mind, a lot of Americans are on the disagreeing side because a) we're not sure if we can afford to help the Syrian resistance and b) we're uneasy about whether or not a military interference by the U.S. will damage our reputation further.

In any case, this is definitely something all member nations of NATO will want to keep a close eye on.

EDIT:

Found an interesting video on the situation that brings some new perspective:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZLTkMYg4zbI

Moar discussion.
Does this change your view on the situation or keep it the same?
 
Last edited:
14,092
Posts
14
Years
It's looking like we're headed for an altercation with Syria, whether it be NATO or just the U.S., based on Secretary Kerry's words last night. As to what that might be, well, that's still on the table.

Edit: The French president Hollande said quote "France will punish Syria", and work alongside the UK and America.
 
Last edited:
10,769
Posts
14
Years
Personally, I'm hesitant about the US and others taking sides because I don't entirely believe the rebels would be any better than Assad. Like in Egypt, Mubarak went, but we got the Muslim Brotherhood in its place. Certain it's really bad when chemical weapons are used, but when you leave a power vacuum and things collapse into fighting on streets and there's no safety for anyone (see also: Iraq) I don't see that as much of an improvement.

The US and others should provide humanitarian aid instead of weapons and military intervention.
 

OmegaRuby and AlphaSapphire

10000 year Emperor of Hoenn
17,521
Posts
13
Years
I'm currently watching today's press conference on Syria. It sounds like we have little options...I hate it though how the government won't even wait for the UN to give back the results...sounds like they're rushing into this thing...
I think that there's a 95 percent chance of an attack on Syria by the US and allies now...
 
4
Posts
10
Years
  • Age 35
  • Seen Aug 28, 2013
In my opinion, I believe they should just be left alone. I honestly do not understand why the US wants to go in and Knowing Obama, they probably will which in reality is a stupid idea. I makes me even more sad that my own government is aligning themselves with the US (Stephan Harper..... I hate him lol) but they won't help with anything. Like, Iraq and Afghanastan are still in a message and now we have the problem with Iran and Russia telling the US if the take action that there will be consequences which when you think about it, scares the hell out of me and should probably scare the hell out of many Americans because Russia and Iran are not some small countries where you can just drop a few bombs and they'd be crippled. These are nations that would give a full fighting force back in which if it ever did escalate to a full scale war, the draft would need to be instituted and I doubt many will be happy. Then at the same time, Syria has also threatened if attacked, then it would strike Israel which would bring Israel to to stick back causing even more from the other countries that want to destroy Israel. So I would hope that the US would be willing to hold back because this could potentially turn into the next 3rd war over something so stupid that really, doesn't benefit them Really, there is nothing to achieve in Syria, regardless of which side wins, it will not help the US at all in any standing because either side... in the end, will not want to help the US or any of the other major countries. Most of them hate the US but love them when they want to give them arms.

The other issue here in why I say the US is going to go in is simply this. Assad has been said to have used Chemical weapons. But there has been no actual evidence that said it was Assad however the US claims they have this but they won't reveal it. Now we have Assad allowing the UN to investigate while rebel forces are hesitant. But the thing is, if it is found the governemtn used them, the US says "yeah, we told you so" If no evidence is found that Assad use them then it is "they destroyed the evidence." So there is really a no win situation for Assad if they are trying to prove it was not them. Personally I believe it was actually the rebel forces as there have been some nasty things that they have done such as execute and entire village of people because they were christian, Or when they decapitated Some priest or Nun (can't remember which, might be both). Now I am not saying that the government didn't do bad things to. I know that they have killed other civilians. But this is just it, people are taking sides for some reason when both sides have really done some atrocious things and I don't know why, especially when taking sides really gives them no actually advantageous outcome unless it is simply to weaken the power of Iran and possibly Russia. Other than that, nothing and it will always remain a mystery to me.
 
Last edited:
5,983
Posts
15
Years
NEWSBREAK! NEWSBREAK! apparently the US has just ruled out regime change in Syria. So the only option left is powersharing right? This is interesting and I don't know how well the idea will sell but all that's left is to convince both sides that neither can win while the other survives :P (points to whoever gets the reference)
 
4
Posts
10
Years
  • Age 35
  • Seen Aug 28, 2013
Well.... Germany has stated it won't be going in at all.... I guess it is going to be time to break out the popcorn....
 

«Chuckles»

Sharky
1,549
Posts
10
Years
  • Age 24
  • Seen Apr 29, 2023
Yeah, I only found out about this through Anonymous saying they were going to help somehow... man I just love those guys in Guy Fawkes Masks
 

Sir Codin

Guest
0
Posts
Which is why I think it'd be best if we just stayed the fudge out of it. Powers sake, I thought Al Qaeda were our enemies. What happened?
 
5,983
Posts
15
Years
Personally, I think the West has to go in XD. It would be a failure of nearly two days of norm development of R2P if the international community did not respond. The Syrian state is clearly not protecting its population and there is every right to intervene for humanitarian reasons. Regardless of who wins and who loses, I think it's pretty fair to call it a failure on the part of the UN, its humanitarian norms, and the international community if atrocities continue to occur.

Haha I know right? I dunno how you could sell a not-regime-change solution to the American public. But it looks like other Western powers are jumping in (and I can't really comment on them :\). I'm assuming some form of powersharing and coalition government will be the solution they end up going for? Requires more research in any case :P
 

KingCharizard

C++ Developer Extraordinaire
1,229
Posts
14
Years
I'm currently watching today's press conference on Syria. It sounds like we have little options...I hate it though how the government won't even wait for the UN to give back the results...sounds like they're rushing into this thing...
I think that there's a 95 percent chance of an attack on Syria by the US and allies now...

They are rushing it, and there is still no definite proof that the Syrian government has used chemical weapons. They say the rebels aren't capable of using the chemical weapons but I disagree you'd be surprised what people can do when they are determined or desperate. And who knows what they could have gotten their hands on in this war, the rebels are just as bad as the government...

I read an article awhile back that rebel leaders were eating human hearts, killing civilians who supported the government and more crap like that.. So at this point I dont care what measures are used against either side and I see no reason to start another world war over this...

If we rush into an attack Russia will get furious and China wont like it either, and neither one of them are good enemies to have.. Also Iran has a decent military force which I wouldn't want to fight either at this point.

I think we stayed out of it for two years now, why get involved now, if he has to use chemical weapons to end this pointless fighting then so be it.. Who are we to judge leaders using drastic and uncalled for measures to win a war, did everyone forget the Atom bomb and Hiroshima?

Japan bombed a military base so we blow up a whole freaking city filled with innocent with men, women and children who arent involved in the war?

I think the US should say out of it and if we do get involved I wont be happy neither will alot of americans...
 
Last edited:
10,769
Posts
14
Years
All the things that John Kerry said today at that press conference sound good. I mean, chemical weapons are horrible and if Assad has used them then he should be punished by the international community, but unfortunately Russia and China don't like the idea of people criticizing what countries do within their borders (presumable because they want to keep discriminating against people in their countries with impunity) so we can't get UN backing to do... something to help the people in Syria. I don't care if the Assad regime falls. I don't care if the rebels get killed. I care that civilians and innocent people are being killed, but there's no clear way of protecting them.

I dunno. Maybe we in the Western world should open our doors to Syrian refugees. If we can't stop the fighting perhaps we can at least help people get out of the line of fire.
 
5,983
Posts
15
Years
UK and Germany have already turned down a military option due to parliamentary decisions. The US might go around looking for a coalition of the willing again, but who the hell wants to enforce UN norms and protect populations anyways? Also, Russia and China do tend to have non-interventionist and sovereignist stances on most things. Also, both of them fear Islamic radicalization as they do have Muslim populations within their borders that can get, unruly, let's say.

At the end of the day this is still a political conflict. There is a rebellion and fighting between a weakened establishment and those who seek to fill the gap. There is a variety of coalitions - meaning they're not really united. It's not Baath Party vs. X- other Party, so it's even harder to consider any of the alternative as legitimate in any way. Are the opposition warlords or do they have a cohesive national vision and the ability to set it in action? From this perspective, the non-interventionist logic is clear. <== neup, overstated. Yes Russia and China don't respect human rights when it gets in the way of the national agenda, but it's valid to say that there isn't an alternative and they're especially not fans of "creating an alternative" - we know how well that usually turns out. If the Assad regime does turn out to be the ones to use chemical weapons - which seems to be more likely than not, they should be punished. But to make it a punitive campaign instead of a protracted war would make what's increasingly turning into anarchy worse and that would be jumping out of the frying pan into the fire.

I think it's important to consider the political outcome carefully, because that will determine whether or not the new political order is sustainable, lest we have something like this occur again a decade or two from now or have this conflict spillover to the rest of the Middle East.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top