35 ms·

This is a damned if we do damned if we don't sort of situation. People are horrified by Assad's regime, so the US is called to take action. Arming rebels is one

This is a damned if we do damned if we don't sort of situation. People are horrified by Assad's regime, so the US is called to take action. Arming rebels is one way it has taken action. Unfortunately in a situation as complex as Syria some of those weapons inevitably fall into the hands of rebels groups we do not want to be associating with. On the other hand if the US were to do nothing, people would decry the injustice of such a powerful nation ignoring - tacitly accepting - the mass murder of civilians. There are no good answers here. Edit: Any country, not just the US, that tried to get involved in foreign affairs to the degree that the US has would inevitably have negative outcomes. Involving oneself in messy situations usually leads to messy conclusions.

david927 9y ago
Rubbish. The US needs to curb its military, worldwide.
- meri_dian 9y ago
  The US is a major reason for the lasting peace among developed nations. A multi-polar world means war.
  - mengibar10 9y ago
    How do you explain fabricating evidence to invade a sovereign country within that context?
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    > The US is a major reason for the lasting peace among developed nations. The Soviet Union was a bigger reason, with Russia (with an assist from al-Qaeda/ISIS) stepping in to take their place not long after the USSR fell. There's been peace among the First World countries because they are united in an alliance with common enemies. The US has been important in forming the alliance, sure, but the enemies were the real key.
mythrwy 9y ago
It's not people are horrified by Assad's regime at all. That's just a line to sell a war in newspapers. There are much much worse governments than Assad in the world. Some are nominally our friends. Some we just ignore because they aren't in strategically important locations or don't have resources of interest. I thought it was commonly understood at this point that "spreading democracy and human liberty" translated to "strategic significance". Which I'd feel a lot better about if they just came out and said. I might even support the campaigns if a good argument were made. But being deceived leaves a bad taste in the mouth and you start not trusting.
- meri_dian 9y ago
  You're much too cynical. We support democratic nations and try to set up democracy and liberal institutions when situations present themselves. We don't completely shut out nations like Saudi Arabia because there is more to be gained by working with them than against them. What would you want the US to do, invade Saudi Arabia because we disagree with it?
  - ssijak 9y ago
    who gave you the right to invade anyone on that matter? people will disagree all the time. if iran or somalia or kuba or whomever disagree how USA is governed, does it give them right to invade you? and will you have the same opinion if USA were to be weak and they had the power to do it?
  - mengibar10 9y ago
    Do you support Democratic nation? Read and learn (spoiler it was not the first nor the last time). https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/19/cia-admits-role-1953-iranian-coup https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/19/cia-admits-rol... The mistake you're making is using the "we". If you mean a state within State by "we", you are wrong, if you mean the people, the public, you are right. People general have no clue what their state (not government) are doing to others.
  - mythrwy 9y ago
    Is what was done to Syria and the Syrian people worth the cost of "setting up democracy and liberal institutions"? (As if that were even remotely possible to be the outcome) So what is it then? Why are we there? It's not human liberty when the people being armed are worse than the people they are trying to overthrow.

david927 9y ago

Rubbish. The US needs to curb its military, worldwide.

meri_dian 9y ago
The US is a major reason for the lasting peace among developed nations. A multi-polar world means war.
- mengibar10 9y ago
  How do you explain fabricating evidence to invade a sovereign country within that context?
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > The US is a major reason for the lasting peace among developed nations. The Soviet Union was a bigger reason, with Russia (with an assist from al-Qaeda/ISIS) stepping in to take their place not long after the USSR fell. There's been peace among the First World countries because they are united in an alliance with common enemies. The US has been important in forming the alliance, sure, but the enemies were the real key.

mythrwy 9y ago

It's not people are horrified by Assad's regime at all. That's just a line to sell a war in newspapers. There are much much worse governments than Assad in the world. Some are nominally our friends. Some we just ignore because they aren't in strategically important locations or don't have resources of interest. I thought it was commonly understood at this point that "spreading democracy and human liberty" translated to "strategic significance". Which I'd feel a lot better about if they just came out and said. I might even support the campaigns if a good argument were made. But being deceived leaves a bad taste in the mouth and you start not trusting.

meri_dian 9y ago
You're much too cynical. We support democratic nations and try to set up democracy and liberal institutions when situations present themselves. We don't completely shut out nations like Saudi Arabia because there is more to be gained by working with them than against them. What would you want the US to do, invade Saudi Arabia because we disagree with it?
- ssijak 9y ago
  who gave you the right to invade anyone on that matter? people will disagree all the time. if iran or somalia or kuba or whomever disagree how USA is governed, does it give them right to invade you? and will you have the same opinion if USA were to be weak and they had the power to do it?
- mengibar10 9y ago
  Do you support Democratic nation? Read and learn (spoiler it was not the first nor the last time). https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/19/cia-admits-role-1953-iranian-coup https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/19/cia-admits-rol... The mistake you're making is using the "we". If you mean a state within State by "we", you are wrong, if you mean the people, the public, you are right. People general have no clue what their state (not government) are doing to others.
- mythrwy 9y ago
  Is what was done to Syria and the Syrian people worth the cost of "setting up democracy and liberal institutions"? (As if that were even remotely possible to be the outcome) So what is it then? Why are we there? It's not human liberty when the people being armed are worse than the people they are trying to overthrow.