Syria and us not doing anything. My thoughts.

You know what drives me insane? That we're off being stupid in wars that don't matter while we sit still and look at the Syrian abuse. It sickens me. We help overthrow governments that may or may not be bad but we do nothing when a government is clearly killing kids and abusing it's people. What is this? Why is this okay?

I know I'm usually anti-war but this time I support invading Syria. They need help. This is insane that we're not helping them yet we helped the Libyan people overthrow their government.

Our National Interest sicken me. All humanitarians (who probably won't read this) need to do all they can to help the Syrian rebellion.

I mean am I alone here? Why are we doing nothing?

articles.cnn.com...:MIDDLEEAST< br />

President Barack Obama on Friday announced that virtually all U.S. troops will come home from Iraq by the end of the year -- at which point he can declare an end to America's long and costly war in that Middle Eastern nation.

Fleh. We will continue to fight useless wars as long as America remains a country. No, seriously I'm not kidding we won't stop fighting with other countries like 100% literally.

reply to post by mr10k


Here's the thing though. I strongly support getting out of that part of the world. But I can't ignore that we're needed in Syria. While we aren't needed in Iraq and Afghanistan.

If you look through my posts I'm anti-war. Very much so but I feel strongly that NATO needs to get involved in the Syrian situation. Or have we already? I'll feel stupid if we already have but I don't think we have gotten involved.

I may research as I have heard we are already in Syria.

reply to post by drew1749

I think it is just a matter of time. We need to get all our ducks in a row before we move. Can't be spread too thin.

I think the problem here is real and very serious. Syria and Iran have a military alliance and formal mutual aid agreement in event of attack on either. So hitting one is hitting both. Now in many areas of the world, a small 2-3 nation agreement like this wouldn't be one I'd want to see decisions made around. In this case though, I really don't think it's just diplomatic niceties. I think they mean every bit of what has been said on mutual aid.

Perhaps...if Syria must be dealt with (and I don't agree, personally), they can take the $.50 solution instead of another trillion dollar war. I figure that is the cost of the bullet to assassinate the man the war would all be over getting rid of in the end, anyway. If given the choice in a strictly sober assessment of options, I dare say Gaddafi would have taken that $.50 solution over how things did end for him...and I have no doubt the Libyan people would have preferred one death to a couple months of civil war and and ruined cities.

When it's all about killing a handful of men, and no one even tries to argue that...then lets just get to the business of doing it and stop fighting entire wars over avoiding a straight up kill shot right at the start. Wouldn't that make more sense?

Originally posted by drew1749
I mean am I alone here? Why are we doing nothing?

Don't you watch the news?......

It's been said time and time again by US Defense Department and people on here is because we, NATO, have zero group support. There are no factions or "rebels" we can arm. No drop points. No strategy.

We'd have to air-strike the palace, the major defense structures, all airports and then send massive barrages of NATO troops.

Nothing like Libya.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000

Perhaps...if Syria must be dealt with (and I don't agree, personally),

You don't agree that the Syria situation is a problem? I just saw a report on NBC (Biased or not it's still news) of a school where the Syrian government rounded up all the kids who put pro rebel graffiti on the walls and killed them. (Actually tortured then killed. One eleven year old kid survived but was badly hurt from what I caught of the report).

I just don't understand why we're not helping. Nothing in Libya was this bad was it? Why are we hypocrites?

When it's all about killing a handful of men, and no one even tries to argue that...then lets just get to the business of doing it and stop fighting entire wars over avoiding a straight up kill shot right at the start. Wouldn't that make more sense?

What do you mean? In a war things don't work like that. Wars are fought to protect leaders. That's the whole point. The end game is a kill shot. What are you saying? lol

reply to post by CALGARIAN

We'd have to air-strike the palace, the major defense structures, all airports and then send massive barrages of NATO troops.

I'd be okay with this. Why can't we do it?

reply to post by drew1749

I agree Syria is a problem. I don't agree that it's OUR problem. There are ways that you and any other American who cares can contribute and help but until or unless Assad crosses into becoming an international threat, then I don't agree that he is in any way an international problem to be dealt with.

This started with fuzzy logic that took us into Iraq on a perceived threat run through with shadows of 9/11. Its now carried us into combat or support operations in several nations. When does it stop? Now we're apparently discussing the actual military intervention into Syria.

When we crossed into Iraq, I didn't seriously consider we'd ever go further. After all, that was 2 wars on separate fronts as it was. Oh how simplistic that thinking turned out to be. In that same line of thinking, we've now 'done' Libya and Syria or Iran are next...then who? and who after that and after that? If it doesn't end here, then where?

I just see this as transcending Syria as a specific case in point, because it really does seem to simply be 'next on the list' for TPTB. Now..If Syrian troops or tanks cross outside the national boundaries of Syria, I'll change my tune quickly and back you 100% for spanking Assad until he screams at the International Court.

Until then...quiet, covert and subtle support is about all we can or SHOULD do...if that much, IMO.

Its an election year, dont expect much till thats done.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


Well what I've always thought and I wish I didn't feel this way. Is that the war in Iraq and Afghanistan isn't honorable. Not that the soldiers are bad people but that we aren't there for good reasons. With this Syria thing. I'd fully support military intervention there.

I don't know. I guess if we're subtly helping that's good too. The thing that we need to realize is whether we like it or not we've put our selves into the "big helping brother" position for the world. (though most of the world doesn't like it. Some do)

I think we'd be hypocrites to not help in this situation.

reply to post by drew1749

You know, I've read and followed your posts for about as long as I've been active here at ATS and I've known you to be, as you say, anti-war and well reasoned in why. Almost to a fault, at times. So, perhaps there is more to what is happening in Syria that I've given the time to research and learn about.

Heck, I'd originally made great hay out of Obama sending troops in to counter the Lord's Resistance Army. Then I met someone at Occupy St. Louis who had done work in that area of Africa and personally worked with children out of that rebel group. It was a learning experience, to say the least and I've come to support the deployment 100%.

So..with that in mind, I'm going to agree to disagree....while saying I'm going to put a bit more time into learning what has you feeling so strongly on this vs. your usual nature on such topics. I may still disagree....but I'll hold off saying more until I learn more. Thanks for the reason to do more research..I think..lol