Why are you against taking action in Syria?

The Op has asked why a person is against taking action in Syria.

The Op has stated that she knows that the Assad government launched the chemical weapons used, and that it was children that was intentionally slaughtered in the process. That such weapons, weapons of mass destruction was being used and that the US should take actions against a corrupt dictatorship of murders, confused as to why the public is against such.

To that end, the following can be stated:

There is a long standing precidences that is in the USA, that we do not get involved in a Civil War, no matter how brutal, right or wrong the actions are. This was set by the founding fathers, including the first President of the USA, George Washington. He was asked time and time again to send aid to the French during their revolution and he refused to do such, on the grounds that the USA should remain out of it and a neutral nation, having our own problems to deal with.

But beyond that, the public is not convienced that the Federal government is being honest with them about what all is going on. The Syrian civil war is a messy affair, as there are way too many countries involved when they should stay out of it. Not all of the fighters that are there, are from Syria, and after all is said and done, what would be the goal of such an attack? Do we just launch a missile over the country and say don't do it? What good would that do? Some would say we should arm the rebels, but then again, would you arm a terrorist, knowing that the very weapons that you give can be used against you in the future?

But there is a long standing precidence for not getting invovled, as the US did not get involved when it came to Rwanda, when the rest of the world was calling it a genocide, the US did not, infact they went out of their way to avoid calling it that. There is the matter of Darfur, and here again the US and the world knows what is going on, and yet does nothing.

To make matters worse, even the other countries in that area of the world, of they look to the US and ask that we do something but the reality is that they should be more than willing to join in to stop such. Why hasn't Turkey or Jordan or Saudia Arabia or even the Arab league, why have they not amassed troops and military hardware to go in and do the job themselves to stop this? Why is it always that the US is looked to to provide the might to stop a situation that is called a humanitarian crises?

But you want more precidence of such, well what about North Korea? After all it has developed nuclear weapons, and its people are starving, is that any worse than a gas attack, starving to death or far worse? How about India and Pakistan, countries that the US is friendly with, yet they developed nuclear weapons, yet the US did nothing to stop or detere or even try to convience strongly on the world stage about such. Even when Iraq, before the fall of Sadamm, when they were our oh so close allies, used chemical weapons against Iran, and the US did nothing or seek to penalize the dictator there.

And the last 2 civil wars that the US got involved in, how are those countries doing right now? I hear Libya is a mess under the control of fundamental Islamist that do not like the USA and Egypt just went through another military coup.

It is a civil war, and perhaps we should not be going after one side or the other to punish, but be there with aid waiting for when the fighting stops to help the people, and perhaps we should do more investigating as to find out who provided the materials and knowledge to create the chemical weapons and go after them first, punishing them for allowing for such to occure, instead of trying to play king maker that will only create another mess that the USA left for someone to clean up.

There are a couple of problems with support for the current calls of action. First is just what happened? The evidence is quite strong that chemical weapons have been used, have come across one report indicating up to 13 chemical weapon incidents over the past year in Syria, but there is still a lot of investigation, contention and review ongoing. The division of consensus at the latest G20 meeting shows that the jury is still out.

For arguments sake, lets say Assad is guilty. With a country that is undergoing civil war, is the removal of its political structure a responsible and appropriate response? What will happen as a power vacuum is created? With international opinion divided, the risk of further and increasing conflict is high.

There is no chance for any elections while Syria is in a state of war. The cleanest way out of this mess is to support the current regime until order is restored, then move towards national elections. Considering the internal and international conflict and tension, I fail to see how any other political force can take control without a large body count and massive social infrastructure damage. As the facts surrounding this case are clarified and an international consensus formed it will help lead Syria out of these troubles.

As for why Syria is in the mess it is in does present many theories. I do hold the forces behind 9/11 and the ongoing middle east incursion accountable with motivators like banking, resources, military, globalization and political power. This is demonstrated through rebel support by the US, Israel and Saudi Arabia. It does look like a divide and conquer approach is being taken by the West against Islam. With the West playing this game for a while now, the rest of the world is waking up to it and getting very sick of it.

Well, no one needs to jump all over your case... you're asking for information and for a different perspective from the one you have formed because of mainstream news. That's respectable.

There's several reasons why I'm opposed to US military strikes on Syria.

We've been lied to about every war we've been in since WW2, or our moral code has been challenged by the way our leaders, during times of probable US intervention, have presented a conflict. "Look at this! Thousands of people are being slaughtered! This isn't right! We are America, we can't stand by and let this happen!"

And while the tears flow and the sad words play on our emotions, the defense contractors drool and start making plans for their cut of the profits, the generals make plans to set up permanent bases and permanent behind the scenes deals with whoever we are supporting to take control. War is a racket. This true of all nations that involve themselves in foreign wars. No nation involves itself in foreign wars unless the profit outweighs the losses. That is a fundamental truth that everyone in the world needs to know, most do know it.

For Syria specifically, it's horrible that so many people are suffering and living under such brutality... it's something no human should have to suffer, certainly not the most innocent among us. Sadly another fundamental truth we all need to know is that interventionist action WILL NOT HELP anyone. We say it will, we convince ourselves that we are helping, otherwise how could we sleep at night and go about our normal everyday lives? In Syria much of the Free Syria Army are just as monstrous as Bashar al-Assad. By firing upon Assad's military installations we begin turning the tide in favor of the rebel army, that does not help the people of Syria. Syria under power of the FSA, some of whom are Al Qaeda would be in my opinion worse than Assad, many are Sunni zealots that will slaughter the Christians, Shiites, Alawites and Jews that were protected under Assad.

The horrors and sadness going on in Syria is a civil war, a religious war and it's none of our business. Chemical weapons do not make it our business.

If I've seen/learned nothing else over the past few weeks, it is the overwhelming acknowledgement that something smells rotten, very rotten with the official story. I think that is part of why you got mauled so much, you really were the first person i have seen that had the understanding in its truest definition of the propaganda apparatus.

It's not so much a reflection of you as it is perhpas France itself. As many know, France has been lock step with the US in all this so no big surprise there's mass propaganda there. Additionally, many know of the culture divide between the traditional French and then Islamic French.

Many people have pointed to plenty of information to fill you in. Thanks for wanting to know the truth and caring enough about the Syrian people to ask. All this appears to be foretold anyhow so its best not to be on the side of evil.

in usa are milions of beggars, sick people, or people withouth home...take care of them first and then think about rest of the world.

USA society struggle in so many ways - overeating, psychological sickness, beggars, criminality...and you want help rest of the world ??? what make USA superior to rest of the world? your retarded politics??

Hey OP,

I get it - no flames here!!

For me its:
1) another war being presented on 'moral' grounds of WMDs and we need way more evidence before we jump into that and risk American lives - we got burned on this in Iraq and so great caution should be the logical course this time,

2) Russia and Iran are rattling sabers in the Opposing Camp - in other words, striking Syria might spark something far larger than a local Mid East conflict - we need to take this seriously, imo, and not just go in guns blazing and bombs-away (we don't need WWIII), and now China has sent over a naval vessel to "observe" and they are also Opposed, so it could be very serious!!!

3) the Syrian government has done atrocious things and murdered many citizens, this is true, and this is wrong - horribly so. Rebels have murdered in return. HOW this humanitarian atrocity is handled, in Syria and other countries, is something the international community needs to define and take a firm stand on - but only with proper deliberation and agreement. That is more powerful, imo. Not that we need to cow-tow to other nations, but that the Wiser course is to act with strength in numbers and unity of vision.

So that is what I've gathered so far, myself, and I'm no expert either!!! As I gather more information, I refine my opinions. That's just where I'm at so far...

peace,
AB

What I find disturbing is that our ex prime minister Blair is trying to push Cameron and co to join in and it was Blair and Bush that started the Iraq war in the first place under the label WMD. Blair has been given the job as EU peace negotiator haha this makes me laugh. He has killed millions of our men & women and yours too for greed. Now he once again is trying to finish his deal with Bush agenda and they want the oil as I said before. Most of us Brits want to stay out of this war and we hope that Cameron will go by his promise not to get involved. Then we hear that our own government are sending £52m to Syria has told me that we are now involved and Cameron and co should be arrested. That money will no doubt go to the bad guys who will re-stock with more chemicals to kill more innocent people and that will bring in the big guns, Russia & China.

Unless you were there and have inside information, everything you are saying is what's being fed by the government and media, and we all know how that went down with WMD's and the Iraq war. We also know there are things about 9/11 that have been kept secret from the public. So why are you so sure everything our government and media tell you is true?

This is how those in power lead the sheep to slaughter. Both of these factions who are involved in this civil war are both capable of launching a chemical weapon attack on their own people. It's not the United States place to involve itself in policing world affairs. Unless there's a mass coalition of nations who equally take part militarily, our government has no right to put our own daughter's and sons in harms way.

When our government was historically formed to be ran by the people and for the people, it would simply be unconstitutional for a government to go against the people's wishes. To do so, is encroaching on dictatorship.

reply to post by sdcigarpig


Well said. It is posts like these that I wish I could give you applause. ( That and a $1.69 will get you a good cup of Joe... )

But it was a well reasoned and thoughtful reply, which has a TON of truth in it. Kudos to you.

Simply because those in control have been LYING to us...

The real reason behind wars is ALWAYS concealed by lies.

They are carefully planned, instigated, staged, engineered and orchestrated into existence to weaken civilization, gain profits and control, reduce the population, and create a global police state.

There is nothing new in a government lying to their people to start a war. Indeed because most people prefer living in peace to bloody and horrific death in war, any government that desires to initiate a war usually lies to their people to create the illusion that support for the war is the only possible choice they can make. THE LIE OF THE CENTURY

"All war is based on deception." -- Sun Tzu, The Art of War

"Wars are all based on lies, could not be fought without lies" — Charles M. Young.

“Most wars are engineered by the Illuminati to weaken civilization and create a global police state" The Illuminati want to own and control everyone. They want to be God. They contrived all the revolutions, the world wars, the Cold War, Korea, Vietnam, the JFK assassination, 9-11, Iraq and Afghanistan and the "war on terror." ~ Henry Makow Ph.D.

“HISTORY IS A LIE! ALL WARS ARE STARTED ON PURPOSE!

I've noticed that most here on ATS seem to have no clue as to what really causes wars.

The reason people are so clueless about this is simple.

Everything you "KNOW" is one big illusion.

History is nothing but lies.

Because of this, people have absolutely no idea WHO the real aggressor is or what really causes wars.

If people KNEW the real reasons behind wars, they would never fight them.

TPTB and their "elite" serial killers are responsible for ALL wars.

Wars are a euphemism for mass murder.

“All war in history has been hatched by governments, independent of the people’s interests, to whom war is always pernicious even when successful” ~ Leo Tolstoy

One group and one group alone is responsible for virtually all wars and bloodshed on the face of this planet. The Synagogue of Satan

My working hypothesis is that most wars/conflicts are orchestrated by this satanic cult. The same people secretly manipulate events on both sides to undermine "all collective forces except our own" and establish world government tyranny (a.k.a. "globalization.") In other words, an Occult Elite is waging war on humanity and we don't even know it. How They Control the World

"I have worked since 1911 trying to find out why the human race can’t live in peace and enjoy the bounties and blessing God provides for our use and benefit in such abundance, it was 1950 before I penetrated the secret that the wars and revolutions which scourge our lives, and the chaotic conditions that prevail, are nothing more or less than the effects of the continuing Luciferian conspiracy." Pawns

War is coming, friend. However I refuse to fight a war, for I honour every person in this world, and I approve of their right to live. I'd like to encourage everyone here, to refuse their gov't's calling to war, against other nations. They do not have the right to drive us against each other for their own financial purposes. Defend your own property for god's sake, but do not kill foreigners just 'cause your politicians tell you. Remember: 'All wars are civil wars, because all men are brothers.'

All wars are civil wars

To date my reasons are:

Shooting rockets in to teach a lesson makes no sense to me. It is supposed to weaken Assad but who gets strengthened in the process? Too much going on there to truly know who the good guys are. Plus - even if we thought we knew who allies were we have no history of their ability to govern ethically over time.

The only thing I do agree on with McCain on is can't do anything small there. Either go in full on or not at all.

Chance of Assad and Iran fighting back is great. Israel will probably be targeted, along with any American citizen or soldier in the area. More will be killed so we can send a message of no tolerance. People have already died. Why contribute to any more than they would do on their own.

We cannot afford this. Just did sequestrations. Where is this money coming from?

Put energy into persuading international arena to place economic pressure on the country. Get any foreign occupation out of there. Its well documented that terrorism increased in tandem with foreign occupation. Therefore this actually places the US at greater risk of future attacks.

As resistance gets stronger terrorist types resort to more desperate measures. Will fight to the death to assert moral high ground and control.

reply to post by TheIceQueen


I am against anything that will start world war 3.

I'd be willing to bet that if Assad did launch Chemical weapons (unlikely) that it wasn't his people that it effected but rather the foreign Wahhabi's and Saudi Gulf State funded terrorist militias.

I will attempt to answer your question as to why I am so opposted to the US intervention in the Syrian conflict. Keep in mind that these are merely my opinions derived from the research that I have done on this so far and is far from perfect or even correct as I am a layman and profess no expertise on matters of law. It's just the way I see it at the moment as I fumble my way through trying to figure it all out myself. The list below is in no way in any order of importance, they are merely in the order in which they came to mind:

1. Pertaining to the Geneva Convention. As far as I can tell Syria did indeed sign the Geneva Convention. However, they did not sign or ratify Protocol II, which is basically an amendment to the Convention as it pertains to non-international armed conflict. I read "non-international armed conflict" as civil war. If this is incorrect, someone please set the record straight. The International Red Cross in the spring of 2012 dubbed this as a civil war, internal conflict. Because of this I am not sure the US has the legal right to intervene at this time until, if ever, it spills outside the borders of Syria.

2. In the Senate and House 'debates' with Dempsey, Kerry and Hauge several of the politicians mentioned the CWC, or Chemical Weapons Convention. This is basically a treaty to reduce the stockpiles of chemical weapons across the world. Syria, as well as 4 other nation states were not signatories of this convention, and therefore do not recognize it and have no international responsibility to reduce their stockpile.

3. US 'allies" have said that they are willing to help in terms of paying the US to stike Syria. Cowardly at best, however, in my mind, it makes a mockery of the US military by placing them in the category of hired guns, or mercenaries. This is not OK with me. We've done enough to erode the reputation of our military we don't need this tacked on as well.

4. Just who on the rebel side will we be assisting? It's well known that the Syrian rebels are made up (not entirely of course) of groups that we are actively fighting in other countries like Iraq, Yemen and Afghanistan. I am uncomfortable with the possibility of aiding these people in Syria while condemning them elsewhere. Points to the true hypocrisy of the US policies abroad. The fact that the American people are speaking up and making it known they are not in favor of this while the politicians continue to move forward points to the government hypocrisy at home.

5. To further point out the hypocrisy, and this truly has me in a quandry, in the debates Kerry mentioned 2 things that, to me, seem in direct opposition to one another. Firstly, he denied that bomb strikes would be designed in any way to affect a regime change in Syria and that was not the purpose of US intervention. He later went on to say, and confirm, that in June of this year the POTUS authorized the US to provide small arms (weapons) along with appropriate training for their use, to the rebels. Can someone help me with this one? How can providing small arms to the rebels who are trying to affect a regime change in Syria be acceptable, while using even larger weapons in the form of bombs not be seen as aiding in a regime change as well?

6. The US 'officials' in their televised debates in the Senate and House provided not one shred of hardcore evidence that regime forces are the one's that launched the chemical weapons. Not one piece. All we have to go on is a lick and a promise from them that this is what happened. The fact that our elected officials are not coming out of these classified breifings shouting from the rooftops that this is indeed the case and throwing their support 100% behind this potential air strike also has me suspecting hog wash is upon us.

7. The use of chemical weapons is abhorent to me, but so is the use of bullets and bombs, Where was the US chest thumping and moral high ground when the other 100K deaths occured in Syria since this thing began a little over 2 years ago. I assume up until the chemical weapons were used (initially now this past April?) the US and the world agreed it was a civil war to be played out as it will and the 100K deaths morally excused as civil war casualties. How is it now any less of an internal conflict (civil war) with the use of chemical weapons? What has changed really other than the addition of a new vehicle to produce death?

I am with Kali on this one, the use of chemical weapons, no matter how disgusting, does not change the fact that this is a civil war in which we (and the world) have no business being involved in until such time as it spills out of it's borders and onto the international stage.

Originally posted by Murgatroid

I've noticed that most here on ATS seem to have no clue as to what really causes wars.

The reason people are so clueless about this is simple.

The reason for war has always been the same, since the Sanskrit first defined it beautifully simply, as the search for more cows.

Only the cows have changed.

reply to post by TheIceQueen


I KNOW one thing.

I DO know that you know nothing!

reply to post by MyMindIsMyOwn

this is a civil war in which we (and the world) have no business being involved in until such time as it spills out of it's borders and onto the international stage.

"How is it possible to have a civil war?" ~ George Carlin

When I think "Civil" War, I think oxymoron...

"Military Intelligence"
"Political Correctness" = how to be correctly corrupt
"Social Justice" = Posse & lynch Mob Vigilantism
"Dark Light"
"Clean Coal"

answers.yahoo.com...

Originally posted by Narcissous
Remember: 'All wars are civil wars, because all men are brothers.'

Reasons I am against action in Syria:

1) Evidence indicates the rebels used chemical weapons. Currently the white house has not produced a shred of concrete evidence that Assad was responsible, and if anything reports are constantly coming out that indicate the complete opposite. You would have to be either blind or ignorant to proclaim that you know for a fact Assad was responsible, when all the evidence says otherwise. The motive is there for one party and one party alone: The Rebels, and the reason is obvious: To lure in the west to act as their air support so they can win a war they are currently losing. If all the evidence to date isn't enough, maybe the fact members of the more extremist sort have openly admitted to using chemical agents in the conflict is enough to at least convince you to reconsider your position?

2) The potential for this conflict to turn into World War 3 is extremely high. Russia has a large number of war vessels currently in the Mediterranean and now China has joined the party with a ship or two of their own (and you can bet they have undeclared subs there as well). Whether or not anyone thinks the Russians are bluffing is irrelevant. Even if they are bluffing, the potential for an accident to occur in the fog of war is too great to accept. Even an accidental exchange of fire between the U.S and Russia could produce the worst conflict the world has ever seen, which could very well end up in nuclear war. Is that a risk you are willing to take when the evidence that Assad was responsible for the August 21st chemical attack is virtually non-existent? Is it a risk you are willing to take when the evidence that Assad is fighting brutal psychopathic islamic jihadists is all over the internet and even the mainstream media?

3) The above two points must beg the question of motive. Why would certain world powers be prepared to put the world on the brink of World War Three? Why are they prepared to lie to complete their plans? What is it they hope to accomplish by this madness? Whatever it is, it can't be good, and the aftermath might just be worse than the conflict itself.

4) Hypothetically speaking, Even if Assad IS the guilty party and by some miracle a limited strike doesn't trigger a larger conflict, what will be the end result of aiding islamic militants in taking over Syria? Will Syria be a better place when it is run by jihadists? What about the chemical weapons stockpiles there? Who's hands will they fall into? What about the religious minorities in the country who received protection from the government prior to this conflict? What about the Christian communities who have been slaughtered like animals by the rebels? What will happen to them after Assad is gone? Furthermore, what will handing over Syria to these animals do for the radicals powerbase in the middle east? Will it not embolden them and give them further power and resources?

Those are 4 very good reasons not to aid the rebels in Syria. I still can't think of a single good reason to intervene.

reply to post by Willtell

Originally posted by Willtell
I KNOW one thing.

I DO know that you know nothing!

No need to be rude...

Just like wars, it's uncalled for.

BTW, with that attitude HOW did you get all those stars?