Sy-riaaa Fuck Yeah! Freedom is the only way yeah

Enh. Morally not opposed to the idea, practically very concerned about the execution of the idea. Which I guess doesn't really help too much...

Why do you feel the need to intervene, Thucydides? What do you actually know about the "poor innocent victims" of the brutal, evil Assad regime?

Why wouldn't we intervene in this case? The people there are pleading for our help, and thousands have died to inaction. Blood is already on the world's hands for not intervening sooner, so we should intervene quickly before it gets any worse

No point. They don't produce much oil.

Intervene why?

The IRA were targeted by the British Army. There was no intervention.
Chechen rebels?
Do we intervene against Israel in Palestine?

Intervene? By invading Syria in the name of 'regime change'? That's just as crazy as invading Iraq (but not as crazy as attacking Iran). Where are you going to stage your invasion from? How are you going to supply your invasion force? Turkey, Iraq, and Lebanon certainly aren't going to help out. Who are you going to replace Asad with? Are we going to try to impose "American Democratic Values" on them again, or replace them with a different dictator? What happens if Hezbollah starts firing off rockets against Israel in retaliation, and another war starts - with the neutrality of Egypt and Turkey no longer guaranteed?

Anyone who favors a 'humanitarian intervention' needs to answer about 150 questions to answer first. Unless you want another 10-year quagmire or a catastrophic regional war.

"Why wouldn't we intervene in this case? The people there are pleading for our help, and thousands have died to inaction. Blood is already on the world's hands for not intervening sooner, so we should intervene quickly before it gets any worse"

Have we already forgotten the body count from the "humanitarian invasion" of Iraq?

"Why wouldn't we intervene in this case? The people there are pleading for our help, and thousands have died to inaction. Blood is already on the world's hands for not intervening sooner, so we should intervene quickly before it gets any worse"

So naive. Who are you intervening for?

It sounds like you are slurping all the anti-Assad rhetoric your America/Eurocentric news media provide without any real knowledge of reasons why the insurgents should be supported. Many many Syrians do not support the insurgents - do they not matter?

Naive and ridiculous.

Do you mean declare war/carpet bomb Syria(n troops)? Or do you mean putting political pressure on Syria?
I agree with Sargmacher and Tolstoy on the military issue. Putting down political pressure is always a better option.
Did Egypt need any help from USA/Europe? No, so don't go to Syria with troops. I don't often agree with the Russians, but I really like their point of view in the UN safety council of the past few years, that'll make the world a better place.

Whilst I'm against knee-jerk western military 'interventions', I don't agree with carpenter's view on Russia.

The Russians and Chinese are highly motivated by self-interest in this case - as in most cases relating to dictators and authoritarian governments. They don't want people knocking on Syria's door because it will call into question whether people should be knocking on their own doors (both externally and internally), not to mention all the economic reasons China and Russia want to keep regimes like Assad and Ahmadinejad in power.

The whole lot of regimes running Syria, Russia and China are disgusting, but so was Hussein's Iraq... and we ended up leaving an enormous body count and our own criminal abuses as well (Abu Ghraib anybody?). I hesitate to turn to the American military as the answer.

Thank you.

@Sargmacher, Tolstoy

So don't intervene. Should we watch the Assad regime continue massacring its own citizens instead? What options do we have to prevent what is clearly a humanitarian crisis?

I heard a couple of interviews with leaders of the Syrian protest movement (now more of a revolt) a few months back that specifically said that they *don't* want intervention by anyone. Considering how intervention often ends up with leadership hand picked and promoted by the intervening forces and a long-term occupation which undercuts any legitimacy of the movement, I can understand why they feel this way.

"I hesitate to turn to the American military as the answer."

I have to agree...

We just GOT OUT of a long, drawn-out Middle Eastern war...

The US cannot and should not act as the world police.

Now, if it were a joint UN-peace-keeping resolution, with multiple nations helping and a firm plan in place, then that'd be something to consider, as obviously there are issues there that need attending to there...

But as China and Russia just vetoed a measure...that doesn't seem likely any time soon...

"Should we watch the Assad regime continue massacring its own citizens instead?"

The Assad regime insists that these people are extremist insurgents. When you say "massacring its own citizens" that sounds extreme, almost genocidal but the violence is specific between insurgent Islamic extremists and the Assad regime.

The whole idea of an American-led intervention is based on western antagonism with the Assad regime, which has never been pro-West and is an important regional ally of Iran. The idea of an intervention is not really because the governments believe the cause of the insurgents is just or should be upheld. This is proven in the fact that there is very little information being given out on exactly what these insurgents stand for. Most moderate Syrians are not in favour of the insurgents. Talk of a 'humanitarian crisis' is aimed at getting the doves on side to destabilise a regime that has never been friendly to the west and to destabilise the only important regional ally of Iran before Israel/US confront Iran on their nuclear ambitions.

We should not intervene militarily. If we do, then it needs to be authorized by Congress. Instead of invading or bombing Syria we should have a total boycott of the country, so that the Assad regime is unable to receive aid.

What I think will happen, unfortunately, is that Turkey and possible Jordan will intervene. Perhaps NATO will end up providing air support. I hope this doesn't happen because it just means that the inevitable Syrian Civil War will have dragged in these countries too, and the chance of escalation into a general regional war increases. Can you even imagine the things Israel may feel its forced to do when there's anarchy in Syria and a soon-to-be-nuclear Iran is openly supporting Hamas and Hezbollah?

All pressure short of military force should be put on Assad to leave, but any American involvement in Syria has the potential to make Vietnam look like a splendid little war that ended in triumph. Stay out!

Dexter, as usual, made a very good point up there - better make sure they even want help before we send it.

Sarg, I'm seeing quite a bit of merit in your narrative, and I've to admit I would be liable to believe such an angle. You mentioned that America/Euro -centric sources are confusing the issue; where are you getting your information?

^Once again, I agree with Eden's statement, and above statements as well to that affect...

I'd just like to voice another small concern for entering another war or war-torn nation, you may all have heard of it...

It's called a lagging economy that hasn't been helped by 9 years of war in the desert dust...

California's economy is one of the worst in the nation right now:

Quite honestly, callous or no, I'd MUCH RATHER we focus on the task of rebuilding the home front and getting the economy going again so, when I graduate college in a few years, I won't have to worry about the prospect of graduating with no employment prospects, limited funds, and the likelihood of grad-school to pay for as well.

So...yeah...

If Syria wants our help, they can wait until we're in an economic position to give it or a diplomatic position to give aid with PLENTY of help and support...

And if they don't want our help, that's that then, again--we don't have the luxury of being the world police anymore.

Like Rome, The Church, and the Spanish, French, and English Empires before us...

I do believe it's time America wakes up and sees itself as a great nation, and one of the strongest...

But no longer THE be-all, end-all world power.

Eden: Information from Syrian students at my University and on my MA course. Also, from readings that I've done and perhaps my general cynicism and not taking our media outlets for granted?

The fact that we "can't afford it" is the most monstrous excuse for not stopping a humanitarian crisis. We should stay out because, worst case scenario, we'd get ourselves wrapped into a new conflict where Americans and sundry Arabs would die for years for no discernible reason. It would be "right" to get rid of Assad, just as it was "right" to get rid of Saddam. It's the things that happen afterwords, like how involved we have to become in setting up a new government and the geostrategic and human costs of a new, extended Middle East adventure, that should dictate whether we should have a military response to the Syria crisis.

But to tell the Syrians being shelled by their own government's artillery that they have to wait till unemployment is down in California for help to come is monstrous. You should be ashamed of yourself, obiwanobiwan. We need to do everything, short of putting our military in harm's way, to end the rule of this madman.

I'm not sure if humanitarian intervention is a good idea.

1) Isn't the humanitarian situation in N-Korea and Zimbabwe more urgent?

2) Did the last few "interventions" work out so successfully?

3) How is it in our interest to intervene?

Oh wow, firsthand sources. Well done! I definitely share that cynicism (especially toward American media), which is why I was inclined to buy your narrative in the first place. Interesting!

"I'd MUCH RATHER we focus on the task of rebuilding the home front and getting the economy going again so, when I graduate college in a few years, I won't have to worry about the prospect of graduating with no employment prospects, limited funds, and the likelihood of grad-school to pay for as well."

That'll happen regardless. You're an English major.

Libya's a really safe, solid place now after the "no fly zone" NATO put up.

Tunisia and Egypt are also beacons of stability since removing their dictators.

Last thing you want is anarchy in Syria and Hezbollah gaining access to all their arms depots.

redhouse1938's reference of Zimbabwe and North Korea is very apt. There have been humanitarian "crises" in multiple other parts of the world in the last decade: Burma, North Korea, Zimbabwe, Kenya, Columbia. Oh the list goes on.

The fact that the list goes on but that this list is one untouched by "humanitarian interventions" highlights the hypocritical stance of western-led interventions. Libya, Syria - they're targets for other reasons than the reason of "humanitarian crisis" that makes intervention popular with American and European publics.

To be clear, I'm only opposed to actually involving the United States military in a conflict based solely on humanitarian reasons. If we're going to put our armed forces in harms' way it should only be in response to an attack, imminent attack, or grave threat to our interests (Cuban Missile Crisis scenario).

However, I do think we need to oppose states which act as outrageously as Syria. Sanctions, isolation, covert support for the resistance, anything short of an American military intervention.

"That'll happen regardless. You're an English major."

LOL. Off-topic question - obi, are you by any chance concentrating in an education-related area of your major?