More massacres of civilians by the Syrian dictator. U.N. investigators thwarted.
What should we do? What should we do?
Choices available:
1. Take military action to overthrow the present cruel regime and thereby secure the blessings of sweet liberty to the oppressed Syrian people, just as we did in Iraq.
2. Let the U.N. "handle" the situation. (Translation: let thousands of people continue to die while the U.N. bumbles and stumbles along with years of fact-finding missions, carefully worded condemnations, and, of course, scores of "resolutions.") Meanwhile, be very vocal in our condemnation of the terrible tyrant dictator, but from a distance. Try to make political points against Russia and China by framing them as uncaring supporters of ruthless dictators.
3. If an organized resistance happens to evolve, support it with limited military aid and advice.
4. Do nothing. Mind our own business. Work on our own troubles at home. Use money borrowed from China to feed our own hungry rather than giving the borrowed money to Syrian Freedom Fighters.
Oh, my. It is a poser. It is a real pickle.
The last one seems tempting, but still fraught with many pitfalls.
Are there any other options that come to mind?
---------
Some main points to keep in mind:
My view?
ReplyDeleteJust as in several other similar conflicts of recent years, just what's going on is obscure. Who's fighting who?
My vote is to stay out, not to offer to arm any faction, nor to partake in airstrikes in support of 'our' favoured side.
Yes, I know, America's troubled over 'stability in the region'. But let's face it, 'stability' is not what 'we' want, we want allies, bases in the region, oil, of course, does Syria have any?
Nope. We have no remit, no right to shred any more people on the grounds that we've chosen to support their enemies. Tribal politics in the middle east will continue. Blood feuds and bloodbaths. Whatever emerges out of the fighting is unlikely to be a western style democracy.
Whoever wins will exact revenge with murder and torture.
Yay!
DeleteWell, they MUST have oil somewhere. Else Russia and China would not be sniffing around and supporting the current regime. I say we go "hands off" in spite of them having oil, assuming they do.
Until they train people on their land to attack New York.
Perhaps it is time for a nuclear demonstration, just to make sure they still work and to make sure the sons and daughters of the old scientists have learned how to make them go boom. No, never mind that. Just "hands off".
Syria was stable enough before this erupted. A dictatorship maybe but not the worst. The question was who started this and why? Is this just a sectarian rising? Could outside influences (Saudi, US, Israel) encouraging this to unsettle Iran via their Syrian friends?
ReplyDeleteMilitary attacks could lead to world wide war, and nobody can afford another $3 trillion wasted by Bush, nor do the populaces wish to lose more soldiers. Russia & China will oppose action whatever happens for a variety of reason. The UN has tried and been ignored.
Nope, no easy answer here.
Maybe a world wide war might yet occur this way.....?
Syria was indeed stable enough for me before this erupted. So was Iraq. So is San Quentin prison at the moment. All are prisons of a sort, I guess. Some bigger than others. I am weary of us interfering though, in situations where our own security is not in question, or where we are not attacked outright.
DeleteWho started this and why? Well, the U.S. Imperialists, of course - who else? Just like they started the entire multi-country "Arab Spring" fiasco by carelessly speaking of "democracy" all the time. Such talk gets slaves to thinking and wanting better. Oil and power, that's the American game. Only Russia and China stand between the downtrodden Arab proletariat and the American Great-Satan war machine. If only America would suddenly vanish and take their puppet Israel with them. We all know that's the REAL solution to these silly freedom things.
The $3 trillion Bush "wasted" on defending his country from fanatical unprovoked outside attacks pales in comparison to the $5 trillion Mr. Obama has so far poured down the drain at the expense of America's poor and hungry in order to further bloat and refinance the excesses of his Wall Street buddies and political financial supporters.
Yet, I am in agreement that we should not jump into every conflict and wildfire that erupts around the world. None of us should. Let revolutions succeed or fail based on their internal support and commitment.
Unless they attack our homeland again.
Bush didn't defend US in Iraq. There was no need to go there but for oil and getting one over on daddy.
DeleteWhat you are so sure of is still being debated, but I was referring to Afghanistan when I spoke of well-spent money in defense of America. As to Iraq, much money wasted there for sure. As an American with a clear head, I understand the reason Bush invaded Iraq (I know you are of a different opinion, and I respect that opinion.) the gross error, in my opinion was in staying in Iraq more than 30 days: 1 week to defeat its military and topple the regime, and 3 weeks of unfettered searching for weapons of mass destruction without Saddam's interference. Then leave. But we didn't leave. Worse, we threw out the Baath government workers who knew how to run the country. But I am one who blames the Iraq war on Saddam Hussein and not George Bush the Younger. All it would have taken would have been for Saddam to take a big gulp and swallow his personal pride and let "us" come in and search without restrictions and advance notices. That way, there would have been no war, no lives lost on either side, no trillions wasted - plus he could have kept his throne and all his palaces intact. You see, in the real world, when a huge gorilla comes up to a little monkey and says, "I want to search your cage", the smart little monkey who wants to survive doesn't puff up his chest and start mouthing off. He opens the door wide and says, "Go for it."
DeleteI know you are of the camp who believes, honestly believes, that Bush didn't think there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, which had been used 3 times in the past. I know you think Bush invaded Iraq knowing no such weapons existed, willing to let thousands of soldiers die because Saddam had tried to assassinate Bush's father, and to get at their oil (instead continuing to buy all the oil we ever would want next door in Kuwait.)
Some of us believe Saddam caused a needless war, not Bush.
And some of us are still waiting to see all that free oil we went there to steal.
You have the oil! The big mistake was not staying, the US did not intend to stay, but sacking the police and army! That left thousands of armed men to feed themselves. Even Blair tried to tell them not to sack everyone but Rumsfeld knew best. Unless he had another agenda of course. He is one man who needs investigating.
DeleteYou know, I wrote this little post because I saw a news article which was reporting the latest bad things happening in Syria, and the news article posed the question, "What should we do about it?" Immediately, it occurred to me, "Why should "WE" be doing anything at all about it?" I think, judging by the past ten years (and more) our best course of action is to sit on our hands and let the world revolve without us tonight.
ReplyDeleteBut, as you know, I am a patriotic hothead whose buttons push easily. I sometimes cross the line. I would apologize, but I'm sure I will again. So.
According to latest reports Syria is descending into civil war with many factions appearing. Sectarian, political, tribal, and Lebanon joining in which means Israel might take action which means ........ etc
ReplyDeleteWhat? Many factions appearing? That's very different. Never mind.
DeleteIsolationist!
Delete