Friday, July 20, 2012

Syria: What should America do?

SYRIA'S BURNING..........should America do anything?   What have you been thinking about in regard to that situation?  It's estimated that 17,000 people have died, mostly innocent civilians, children, etc.  

What do you think about what we should do?



Steve said...

If we are the beacon of freedom, there is only one answer.

viburnum said...

Yes. And the highest manifestation of freedom is the right of self determination. So lets stay the hell out of it.

CnC said...

If we can find any sane element to support this would be a great time to help overthrow a vile regime that supports terror worldwide. If the muslim brotherhood grabs power we could be in worse shape then before.
Its hard to tell which way the wind blows in D.C. these days. Obama blew a perfect opportunity to overthrow the scum in Iran, yet he was all for the overthrow of Egypt and Libya?? There is no logical method to Obama's madness, he will do weird things I think at this stage of the election game just to gain points.

Joe said...

I have to agree with viburnum on this one. We need to stay out of the frey.

While we're at it, we should declare an emergency at the UN building, demolish it, refuse to house the UN on American soil again, withdraw all support to the UN and watch them destroy each other in the name of peace.

Brooke said...

Muslims in Islamic countries have been slaughtering each other since Mohammad rolled out of bed smelly.

We can't stop it or change it no matter what we do; I would think the last decade of maimed soldiers returning to our soil would be proof enough of that.

We shouldn't have ANY involvement with Islamic countries AT ALL, other than to bomb them into a glowing ashtray when they get bold enough to mess with us.

Mustang said...

Only the Syrian people can throw off the manacles of their oppression. Otherwise, the Syrians will never develop a deep appreciation for the true value of liberty. Thomas Jefferson reminded us, “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” We need to stay out of Syria and focus on the tyrants inside our nation’s capital.

Ducky's here said...

Well Brooke, it hasn't reached the levels of Stalingrad yet. Muslims still lag way behind the West.

The question is what can we do. Truth be known Israel and the U.S. have been comfortable with Assad and aren't particularly desirous to see him go. But you're right, just turn the place to glass.

Fine Christian sentiment.

Sam Huntington said...

We need to learn how to mind our own business.

Ducky's here said...

Why Sam, we live on some little self contained island?

Anonymous said...

I agree with Joe on all counts. There is no positive future for America no matter what happens in Syria.

FreeThinke said...

Viburnum, as usual, has provided the perfect answer.

We have not right -- and certainly no DUTY -- to interfere in the internal affairs of other peoples' countries.

As I've said all my life about liberals. Let them take proper care of their OWN families instead of acting the busybody by always telling others how THEY should live.

Most of the 'liberals" I've known have been slothful, sloppy operators, live in untidy, unattractive surroundings, deride middle-class values, and neglect to teach their children proper manners and sensible values.

A generalization, of course, but true enough in my personal experience.

If we can't take good care of ourselves, how in Heaven's name could hope to take care of others?

~ FreeThinke

Sam Huntington said...

Why Sam, we live on some little self contained island?

Actually, I see no “national interest” compelling US involvement in the affairs of Syria; not even a moral imperative. Beyond this, our record of accomplishments in “saving people” from tyrants has not been a good one, nor much appreciated by the saved. If it is true that self-interest is the engine of human behavior, there are no American interests in Syria. But I do understand your question: the left has never hesitated to send others into harm’s way, so long as there is never any peril to themselves.

FreeThinke said...

Sam is absolutely right, Ducky. If you feel differently, why don't you go to Syria and present your body as a living sacrifice to save the Syrians from their poor, benighted selves?

Good Lord! After all the loss of human life, loss of prestige abroad, and the bitter humiliation we've suffered in defeat after defeat after defeat since WWII, you'd think we'd have learned our lesson by now.

Doing the same stupid thing over and over again in hopes of achieving a different result is the very essence of INSANITY.

~ FreeThinke

FreeThinke said...

Bravo to you too, Mustang!

~ FT

Z said...

Steve, but how involved must we become? Militarily or only helping refugees around the borders? Did you feel we should have helped the students in Iran during their uprising a few years ago?
Thanks for coming by.

Viburnum ... you have a point, too!
(by the reading DON'T MESS WITH TRAVIS and haven't laughed so much in ages!)

CnC...the world can't trust US anymore at all, anyway. He is not a principled leader, to say the least!

Joe, GOod POINT about the UN! But, you know, we'd owed them money for YEARS and one of the very first things Obama did was PAY UP...remember? make such a good point. "rolled out of bed smelly"
you crack me up!

Ducky, are you real clear on your thoughts? :-)

ConFire.....that's a good point. I just hate to see the civilians getting so hurt. But we can't be everywhere, and we don't have the money.

FT "If we can't take good care of ourselves, how in Heaven's name could hope to take care of others?


Sam, no moral imperative when kids are being killed?

Ugh...I pretty much agree with everyone..."I'm so confused!"
This is not the same America which had the money to help other countries, we don't have the money to help ourselves anymore.

I just hate to see the children suffering in Syria.

But isn't this exactly what the UN should be working on?

Z said...

Mustang...that's true, but do they have the ability to escape this madman who keeps bombing them?
I do agree with you and it seems like every time we DO help, people hate us more. It's like loaning a friend money!

Sam Huntington said...

Sam, no moral imperative when kids are being killed?

War and civil conflict always kill innocent children. How does it serve American interests to send our soldiers to Syria, so that the political left can accuse them of killing Syrian babies? Do you think the lives of Syrian kids are more precious than the lives of our teenaged soldiers?

Silverfiddle said...

I hope we are clandestinely helping to kick over that rotten regime.

The fall of Assad cuts off Iran from the Levant, providing some welcome relief for Lebanon and stranding the Hezbos.

Hopefully, the Arab League can get a force together to help sort through the chaos when Assad falls, keeping the Sunnis from slaughtering the Christians and the Alawites.

Other than the clandestine help, we need to stay the hell out of it.

Pris said...

"Muslims still lag way behind the West."

Right Ducky, and the Islamists want to drag us all back to that 7th Century that they prefer!

I don't know about you, but I say, No Thanks!

Ticker said...

Leave them alone. These people have been killing each other for centuries and have no compulsion about continuing.

Sound harsh and cruel? Read the Old Testament. Unless a nation was trying to harm Israel, God said, stay out of it.

Unless they are trying to harm us or an ally, leave it alone.

Russia is stirring this crap as proven by their statement to veto more UN observers or any peace keeping force.


Z said...

Sam, "Do you think the lives of Syrian kids are more precious than the lives of our teenaged soldiers?"

I very much think many leftists do.

SF...let's hope something's going on. But I sure wouldn't trust the Arab League.

Pris, the left champions the Muslims for such innovation and such artistic accomplishments until something like this happens, they they lag behind, the 'poor souls'! Man.

Ticker...I'm veering in that direction.
It's tough to see kids die, but our soldiers are OUR SOLDIERS and I want no more maimed, like Brooke said....

Brooke said...

Hey, I didn't say bomb Muslim countries preemptively, I said do it when they get bold enough to harm America directly.

Sometimes, you have to speak in a language they understand, as the old WWII song goes.

Christian sentiment has nothing to do with it.

Always On Watch said...

Stay out of regional conflicts in the Middle East. We bollux it up when we get involved.

Lisa said...

I wish there was something we can do but like many say here there is no grand solution.
Hopefully the Hague will take care of that tyrant ..

Steve said...

What is our great military for that we have placed all over the world, if not to stop murder and oppression?
What do we stand for?
What I here is a supposed impression of our mistake of invading Iraq.
Don't get involved.
Let them take care of it.
But they can't.
Because we made a mistake in Iraq, doesn't mean getting involved is wrong.
Because Americans might lose their lives if we interject, doesn't mean Arab lives and freedom aren't worth dying for.
Russia and China have made clear they want the murders to continue.
Are we not saying the same thing, if we do nothing to stop the murders?
Where would we be if France had not helped us in the Revolutionary War?
Where would the world be, if we had not gotten involved in WW II?
I know we were attacked.
Are we not being attacked when Russia and China promote murder and instability around the world?
Like it or not, we are the leaders of the free world, and if God had anything to do with our exalted position in this world, surely we cannot turn our backs on those being killed and suffering.
Our position gives us the responsibility and duty, to act.
So have a little courage, even if we do make another mistake, at least we tried and for good reason.

Z said...

Steve, you make good points but I'd rather see us do humanitarian there than help than get involved in another war with soldiers, arms, etc.

We're hated every time we help; you know that. We lose our precious soldiers (who are more valuable than they've been treated lately by US)or they're maimed for life...and, pretty much? FOR NOTHING.

We should send a strong signal that we will only help if we are somehow involved in the 'clean up'...look at what's happening in Iraq again today

Steve said...

I disagreed with the REASON we invaded Iraq. Certainly the world is better off with one less murderous tyrant, Saddam.
We could have attacked Iraq when Saddam murdered the Kurds. We should have gone to Baghdad when Bush had a 500,000 multi-national army there because Saddam invaded Kuwait. But we decided to invade Iraq because they took some pot shots at our planes patrolling a no fly zone. Bush sweetened that reason, by adding lies about mushroom clouds.
Judgment of when and how to use military power?
People seeking freedom are being massacred on the streets of Syria, today.
Their neighbors aren't/won't/can't help, and the other two major powers in the world are promoting the killings.
If not now when?
Is mass murder a good enough reason to take the risk (your points are true)?
There's an old Oriental saying, save someones life, and you are responsible for that life.
Seems the neocons did have something right. Depose Saddam and you will unleash a democratic movement in the whole region.
And we see the "Arab Spring."
We would be deadly irresponsible to walk away from the movement we started. They still need help.

Z said...

STeve, but the left derided us for 'nation building'...funny, soon after we leave for that reason, everything falls apart again.

I will never believe there were no WMDs in Iraq and, if we should be saving Syrians, we should be saving Iraqis, too. I'm thinking 350,000 dead Kurds from gases were from WMD.
And everyone believed Saddam WMD, particularly some of his own generals, etc.
I believe Syria was in that up to Assad's eyeballs.

So, you want us to go in bombing, or do more of a refugee/aid program for those who can escape the cities?

viburnum said...

Steve: "What is our great military for ...if not to stop murder and oppression?"

Harry Summers said it best. "The purpose of the US military is to kill people and destroy things in the name of the United States government when that government decides such action is in the pursuit of the national interest."

That statement came after the bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut, by way of complaining that we were in the wrong place, doing the wrong job, with the wrong instrument.

I don't see a 'national interest' in trying to police the world, particularly when our efforts in that direction earn us nothing but the hatred and contempt of the ungrateful bastards who are the beneficiaries of our expenditures of blood and treasure.

Steve said...

The WMD issue was put to rest by President Bush himself when he told the country there were no WMD's in Iraq.
I claim Bush lied about "necerlur" weapons capability in Iraq, because he knew BEFORE he made his "mushroom cloud" remark in the State of the Union address, that it was not true.
His own Ambassador Wilson reported (after being on the ground investigating) that there was no yellow cake sale and all Saddam had was a bunch of useless tubes.
Then, the Bush administration went on to publicly destroy Ambassador Wilson and his wife.
That letter from Wilson to the president is in the federal record.
Check out the San Francisco Chronicle's interview with Colin Powell (April 2006) when Powell admits that some of the information he gave to the UN defending the US invasion of Iraq, was not verifiable and probably false. Yet he gave that knowingly false information to the world anyways.
The evidence shows Bush knew there were no WMD's in Iraq, yet he said there were, but later said there were not. I call that a lie.

Steve said...

vibrnum said,

"I don't see a 'national interest' in trying to police the world"

I felt that way about the invasion of Iraq, and was called a traitor for it.

That act (invading Iraq) had consequences we are responsible for. And now we are going to walk away from the mess.

Reminds me of another mess we created and now want to walk away from, the national debt.

Z said...

Steve, I know very few people who say nuclear correctly but that rankled me, too.
I don't despise Bush as much as you do because he did show love for this country and was a decent man with a bad rap from the left.

YOu seem to be the only one who knows Bush SAID WMD wasn't there. SO what does HE think killed almost 400,000 Kurds, butter knives?

I'm tired of arguing and feeling rotten about our country.

I want Reagan back.

I suppose you didn't like him, either, Steve?
What Republican pres DID you like?

Steve said...

It's nice we have video tape. Google Bush telling the country there were no WMD's. Read the report of our military who after a 2 year through search, stated there were no WMD's found. That is still the official position of the United States.
I voted for Ford.

viburnum said...

Steve: "I felt that way about the invasion of Iraq, and was called a traitor for it."

Not by me. I'm with Voltaire regarding opinions. I'll defend your right to be wrong. Most of the sneering contempt you'll read around here comes from the left.

The problem with the Iraq war is that there were two of them. Had Bush I taken Saddam out the first time he wouldn't have been an issue a dozen years later. 20-20 hindsight of course, but the lesson of Iraq is that whatever we do in that region we're bound to be wrong. We've screwed up every time we've tried, and they resent us trying. Lets just leave them alone to chart their own course and deal with the end result.

Z said...

Steve, thanks for that info.
my husband, too, disagreed with our going into Iraq. BIG time.
He was right, I think.

So, Steve...what WOULD you think we should do?
And have you heard, too, that America's reticent to get involved because Arabs will say we're in cahoots with Israel?
My feeling is SO WHAT IF WE ARE?

Viburnum (am LOVING the book SO MUCH!! you were right, it's hilarious!)
And you're right...if we felt those countries wanted us there or welcomed our help afterwards, what a big difference in us there would be about our helping.

Of course, we can hardly FINANCIALLY afford ANYTHING anymore!

beamish said...

If the Syrian people have time to make protest signs, they're not being slaughtered fast enough.

Pris said...

Steve, Mr. Pris worked in Intelligence. With all due respect, you don't know what you're talking about!

Intelligence from other sources around the world, buttressed the conclusion that there were WMD.

Saddam was working on nuclear power, just as Iran is today. It isn't now, and wasn't then, for nuclear power plants.

Btw, if you see Wilson as some genuine representative of the truth, you're sadly mistaken!

Steve said...

Since Bush said both things, take your pick.
Wilson was Bush's ambassador. Why would he lie? And why would Bush go out of his way to publicly destroy Wilson and his wife.
And then there is Mr. Powell. Why would he say he lied to the UN and knew the information was false?
I doubt Bush would have admitted there were no WMD's unless he had to. After all, that was his "mushroom cloud" reason for invading Iraq in the first place.
I'll stand by President Bush, the US Army's 2 year investigation, and Mr. Powell's admittance.
Yes, other countries intelligence services did say Saddam had WMD's, but all have retracted those claims, and no State now still believes that. Please list the countries who still claim Saddam had WMD's.

Bloviating Zeppelin said...

Nothing. Except to stay the HELL out of the Middle East.