Log in

No account? Create an account
I'm uncertain about Syria - alyburns' (aka sideburns & alyjude) Hiding Place
If you spoke faster than David Hewlett you’d travel back in time: Michael Shanks
I'm uncertain about Syria
Maybe I'm not as politically savvy as I was during the "Should we or shouldn't we" surrounding the decision of whether to go into Iraq due to those non-existent 'weapons of mass destruction'. I understood fully the decision regarding Iraq and how it had NOTHING to do with weapons, but MONEY. I do understand why Congress is, so far, clearly undecided - they don't want the same branding Congress received when 'fooled' by the Bush "Yes, they have WoMD in Iraq!" push. I also know that Congress can not allow the Iraq fiasco to influence them now. One rule that should always be utilized is: Take each situation ALONE, decide based on each individual situation, not on past failures or successes.

For me, even using that criteria, I don't know about Syria? Is Obama's reason for wanting to in with drones, etc. simply based on humane reasons? Or is there another, more political reason? This is what I don't know. I know it can't be oil - Syria represents POINT forty-eight percent - as in less than ONE PERCENT - as in less than HALF OF ONE PERCENT of oil production in the world. Could it be a part of the whole Palestinian issue? Syria has been a 'pathway', as claimed by Israel, used by Iran to transport weapons to be used against them. Is poor Syria simply a pawn? And one where its own people are split and thus in the middle of a civil war (also religiously-anchored)?

Can anything like this ever be completely explained to the American people in a way that would make sense? Is too much of the needed information - highly classified? I don't know. I don't know if killing thousands of one's countrymen, women and children by ANY means is okay - meaning that I don't believe we can say, in good conscience, "Yes, kill your people with guns, bombs, torture, knives - rape, pillage, destroy; just don't use chemical weapons, all right?" Which of course, leads us to the question of whether the US should be the leader in policing the world. And maybe, for most Americans right now - that's the real question?

However, if it is, I well remember how our administration at the time sure didn't believe the US should be just that - a world police force - during the mass massacre of thousands of Rwandans. Back then, the people of the US were urging, writing, emailing, begging the Administration to DO something along the lines of major military action. But gosh darn it, poor Rwanda had nothing the US needed - so it was left to its own devices and mass graves. Kind of kills my idea of taking each situation on its own merit - or maybe it means we add a very important caveat: Take each situation on its own merit without regards to what the country in trouble has or can do for the US. Once we accept that premise; take it to our hearts, minds and laws, then we can really delve into whether we, the US, should be any kind of 'world police'.

I do know one other thing: If we take the responsibility - it should be based on, imho, an immediate threat to the US and/or its allies as stated by the offending country - and/or any kind of totally inhumane action on the part of the regime/administration/government/monarchy to its people - and not on our need to 'bring Democracy' to another country the way religions try to bring/force their beliefs on others - and - other countries. Just because a country is in the middle of a civil war - or part of a country has declared war on part of its people, doesn't mean it's our job to rush in and 'make it a democracy' - and if they ask us to do just that - we must be prepared for the result. If the people are finally given the right to vote - but vote in an administration of which we disapprove, well, that's democracy, as this country is so well aware. Duh.

Wait...I just realized there might be another valid reason for going into Syria: The number of refugees flooding into other countries like Turkey and Jordan are creating the kind of drain on resources that can and will impact the world. So is ending the war the most effective way of dealing with this kind of drain? Can humanitarian efforts - as typical of what's already being done by so many agencies, etc., ever be enough?

*scratches head*

Nope, I just have no way to go regarding Syria - other than praying for the refugees, applauding the countries that have taken them in with open arms, and applauding the personnel from the US and around the country that have gone to help with medical aid, food, clothing, etc....


3 comments or Leave a comment
(Deleted comment)
alyburns From: alyburns Date: September 7th, 2013 01:45 am (UTC) (Link)


We seem to be darn choosy when it comes to deciding to be the "police" over countries killing their people by the thousands.
cross_stitchery From: cross_stitchery Date: September 7th, 2013 01:28 am (UTC) (Link)
it's a horrible situation and there's a part of me that wants someone - anyone - to intervene. BUT - look at Iraq now. is it really better off than it was under Saddam? maybe one day it will be, but not right now, i think. also, there's a reporter who has claimed that the chemical attack wasn't carried out by government forces, but was an accident - that rebels have admitted they were given chemical weapons, without being told what they were, and mishandled them. if that's the case, then the legal argument for intervention is no longer valid, and do we really want to go down the road of non-existent WOMD again? this claim needs to be investigated before any decision is made.

the wider question is really this: at what point does the larger world community intervene in the affairs of a sovereign state? and i don't have an answer to that question.
alyburns From: alyburns Date: September 7th, 2013 01:57 am (UTC) (Link)

I know back in the 30's, people

knew what Hitler was doing to the Jews, Gypsies, Gays, etc. and yet, that by itself wasn't enough to get the US (back then, we were very isolationists) involved in stopping him, nor was his 'march across Europe' and finally, even when blasting our biggest ally, England, to pieces, we still didn't intervene. Oh, yes, FDR wanted to, but America - and Congress - just wanted no part of the situation. So what DOES it take?

I think, for my part, where Syria is concerned, all the Humanitarian efforts we can offer must be done, and that includes helping the countries who have taken in the refugees. I know with Rwanda, man, there was no doubt in my mind we should have put boots on the ground and not just the humanitarian kind, either. I just wish I knew if what's going on in Syria is as clear-cut as Rwanda (and other such incidences)? There seems to be more factions - and of course, Russia and China have a large stake in this - more than we're being told = - which is why they definitely don't want us to intervene!

I just pray that for once, we can look at a situation without any past errors - or successes - clouding our judgement about what we should do in Syria - and in addition, wait for the U.N. to do their thing (I still believe in the UN - especially with regards to situations like this).

*fingers crossed all around*
3 comments or Leave a comment