Are you in favour of military intervention in Syria?

I don't think it is necessarily categorizing it on the same level, but the fact that the big game plan is to take it all down, allies or not. There have been quite a few leaked documents and candid talks with upper-echelon military personnel discussing what is basically a road map to taking those countries down - Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Iran... And this was back in late 90's early 2000's.... And look at where we are now.

'we' should just stop helping the bad guys.

@stonyman65 said:

Fear of chemical weapons will probably always be a bit more immediate due to its wider proliferation and longer history of military usage. Threats of nuclear war now-a-days probably causes more reminders of Bert the Turtle-esque silliness than anything else, for better or worse.

Regarding the "50 lost nukes", I'm assuming you're thinking of the event in 2007 where a number of nuclear tipped cruise missiles were mistakenly loaded onto a B-52, and were thus without the mandatory security for nuclear weapons for about a day and a half? If not, I'm not quite aware of the event.

Regarding the 8 nukes lost during the Cold War, they didn't exactly disappear into the mists as your comment seems to imply. Here's a short description for each of them, and the circumstance that caused them to be lost.

http://www.ar15.com/archive/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=679002

Provide a source if you will. I'm interested to see if it's an actual intended plan for the future, or a theoretical plan for potential large scale warfare in the Middle East, which all branches of the military has for a variety of regions around the world.

Neither yes or no. =-|

Taking out a bad guy is not necessarily a good thing when those that seek to replace said bad guy are also bad guys.

I'll look for it again. There were links from a YouTube video about it but the video got taken down. Stand by. I'll find them.

Edit: found a re-upload of the video. Not sure if the links are still active.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXwx3yXBgvU&feature=youtu.be

Do I support invasions that are not constitutionally approved by Congress?

NOPE!

Do I support invasions that are based on a POSSIBLE SUPPOSEDLY MAYBE CHANCE that Syria used chemical weapons?

I REMEMBER THE LAST TIME THE U.S. SAID SOMEONE HAD WEAPONS...AND THEY DIDN'T FIND SHIT!

So no. This is a dumbass idea by a dumbass President and dumbass government.

@jakob187: The proof is pretty definitive that they did in fact use chemical weapons. Throwing maybes around that issue is a good way to delegitimize your point. Yeah MAYBE the sky is blue who really knows. Well the people who's job it is to know for a living, they know. Not wanting it to be so is not evidence of the contrary.

If there is an intervention, the United States will impale and destine the country and it's nation to a life of horror and indirect slavery, like they did to Iraq. If there is no intervention, Assad will keep killing his people and demolishing his land until he's killed, which won't happen anytime soon.

In both cases, Syria will suffer war and destruction and the death of human life for years to come.

God fucking help them if god exists.

I'm in favor to save the people; I'm not in favor because the US has ulterior motives, despite what they may say.

@stonyman65 said:

Interesting video, I'll look into the provided leaked documents more closely later when I have the time. However, as with all potential conspiracies, there's more room for doubt than given credit in the video, such as, in this case, the steps the US government has not taken in providing aid for the rebels which has in turn led to fundamentalist terrorist groups getting greater footing amongst the rebel forces. One can imagine a much more proactive approach the Obama administration could have taken without setting any US boots on the ground.

Not necessarily intending to discredit the video makers as well, but some of the other points they bring up also has rather sensible answers as opposed to conspiracy theories. The high tension between Iran and Saudi Arabia doesn't make the latter's preparation of war with the former that surprising. As for Iran's Nuclear program, the information given in the video runs contrary to what we know about Iran's nuclear program as well as Uranium enrichment. Enriched Uranium with a composition of 3.5% U-235 is enough for any civilian usage. For military grade usage, you need a composition of about 20%. As Iran's enrichment program included 20% enrichment, to say they had no aims for Nuclear weapons runs contrary to the science.

All that said, with the likes of Tonkin Gulf and Iran Contra, such conspiracies being carried out by the US government is certainly with precedent, and is worth great consideration.

I'm well aware of the threat that lost nukes and nuclear waste poses to the world. It's ridiculously easy to buy small warheads or fissile materials these days, and frankly I think that we will see a lost warhead being used in the near future. Countdown to Zero is one good documentary on the subject. It's on Netflix right now and apparently someone uploaded it to YouTube as well.

@isomeri: Cool! I definitely check that out.

@turambar: Yeah, pretty much my thoughts exactly. That stuff really gets kind of crazy, but considering what had happened in the past (as you mentioned), at some point you kind of have to go "what if....".

Lets just hope we're all wrong and this whole situation ends as peacefully as possible.

no, No, and FUCKING NO

Everyone seems to be killing each other fine without our help in these things.

awesome, an idealist.

What Syria is about is control of global resources and bargaining position. It has nothing really to do with people or the humanitarian crisis. No one making these decisions cares about the people of Syria. They care about access to global resources and denying that access to competitors to strengthen their bargaining position.

We don't want to send humanitarian aid to Syria.

We don't want to police Syria.

What we want is to control oil resources in that region and deny access to those resources to Russia and China. And yes, we are going to spend American lives to do it.

Unfortunately, yes.

I'm not in favor of regime change or some kind of invasion. I see no reason why soldiers have to be on the ground, as there is a substantial enough opposition to handle the fighting and eventual change of leadership. What appears needed are efforts to prevent future chemical weapons use, as allowing that poses a serious threat to all countries' long-term safety. History has shown that inaction in situations like this leads only to untold horrors, and action should be taken by the international community to prevent that. A coordinated strike to get rid of the Syrian government's chemical weapons delivery system seems most likely.

No options in this situation are favorable, and things can go wrong no matter what action you take. But whether it's an effort for political positioning or truly about a moral imperative, I believe some action must be taken to prevent more use of chemical weapons in the Syrian civil war.

@alwaysbebombing: Russia isn't siding with Syria just to say "fuck you"to the west. Syria has long been a Russian ally (I think it's only Syria and Iran) as they are close both geographically and idealogically and they provide Russian warshipswith their only mediterranean port. If Assad's regime was overthrown it would be a big set back to Russia. This along with the political closeness between Iran and Syria are the main reasons that the west want to enter the war on the side of the rebels. They wouldn't do it for the Saudi people if the revolted and they stayed well clear of Egypt.

I don't think there's any good that they can do there. And I'd guess all that the west really wants to do it destroy chemical weapons stockpiles to keep them out of the hands of the rebels because of their allegiances. Outside military intervention doesn't seem to fix anything and you can't force democracy on countries. It's a very complex situation and it worries me when you see statements from American politicians talking about how it's just common sense that the Syrian government carried out these attacks. That is a fucking terrible reason to give for getting involved in a war.

@pyrodactyl: So would the US. So would all large governments, it's not just the Russians.

I am for an intervention, just not by the US. Let Europe field this one, it looks like France is just rearing to go.

My response would be to laugh out loud. As would Syria's.

Fuck no. The US won't start any more shit in the Middle East if it knows what's good for it.

I said yes, but then I remembered that if we put all that military money towards buying malaria-preventing anti-mosquito nets, which save about 1 life per $2000 spent, we could save way way way more lives.

I'm curious why you think they would laugh, as the French and British led the initial no-fly efforts against Gaddafi's Libya. They would very likely be a part of any effort to cease Syrian government airstrikes against its people.

Edit: Double post for some reason. Not sure why posting on Giant Bomb has been so crazy lately.

15 March 2011 – ongoing, 100,000 killed overall (June 2013 UN estimate)

UN investigations have concluded that the government's abuses are the greatest in gravity, frequency and scale.

Seems to me like they need help, a military presence could stop the fighting for while.

I believe that humanitarian intervention needs to be increased dramatically as it has been scant to say the least. We now face the biggest refugee crisis since the creation of the United Nations yet the western states seem to be merely using rhetoric to criticise whilst doing little to actually help the Syrian people who are being affected dramatically by the use of chemical weapons as well as fighting a superior military. I can understand why the west won't get involved as a result of China Iran and Russia supporting the Syrian regime, which even by itself is a strong military which could hold its own against the west. This strikes me as being much like the Spanish Civil war were isolationism was the policy adopted and it cost a legitimately democratic regime to fall to the hands of a tyrant. As the old adage goes if you don't learn from the mistakes of history you are doomed to repeat them. Organisations such as M.S.F have already requested more medical supplies but it should not be left to charitable organisations to fill the void left by the legacy of imperialism. America most definitely won't want to get involved as a result of Afghanistan and Iraq, how it does poke through the folly of the war on terrorism. Again it is a hard situation to gauge but at the very least no fly-zone's should be established, humanitarian intervention must be increased as well as the use (which is already happening) of special forces to assist the free Syrian army. If we have to believe that the the values of the west are universal (which the western states, and most predominantly america would argue) then those who are attempting to perpetuate those values then the west must support their ideological counterparts or risk further de-stabilisation of the region as a result of immigration into Iraq, Turkey and Lebanon which has already occurred.

Lol?

Syria isn't Libya for a start. Britain and France will likely be involved sure, but they won't genuinely lead or be the driving force behind any intervention. And they certainly wouldn't get involved here (or in Libya) without active US participation.

The US is strong enough to do pretty much whatever it wants whenever it wants, short of directly attacking somebody who can fire back with nukes. It really doesn't need Britain or France for their military assets (except maybe the use of the UK's bases on Cyprus). Britain's primary role nowadays is to give international and domestic legitimacy to US foreign policy, not to do the heavy lifting in an operation of this magnitude. Britain couldn't do that even if it wanted to.

If Britain or France are seen to be 'taking the lead' in anything like this, it's entirely because the US doesn't want to be seen to be taking the lead in anything like this. Americans are much happier if US forces make up 95% of an 'international' response than if they make up 95% of an American response, even though it's just the same thing in different packaging. Cameron and Hollande are happy to play their part because it makes them look like powerful statesmen and offers a distraction from domestic problems in their own countries.

Nobody involved gives a single fuck about what is happening to the people in Syria -if they did then seeing those people being killed with regular explosives, bullets and shrapnel for the last two years would have been adequate reason to intervene. They care about pursuing their foreign policy. The alleged use of chemical weapons is merely adequate casus belli for doing so.

If the US invade Syria, the plot of Splinter Cell: Blacklist is going to happen.

Groovy.

Normally I have a pretty clear opinion on stuff like this, but I just don't know. If the rebels win, it's a clear possibility that the country will be run by muslim extremists. We don't want that. On the other hand we can't let a government just slaughter its people wholesale because they want a change of leadership. Going in just to stop the violence might be an idea, but at this point that would probably just put hostilities on hold. And what do we do, give the country to Assad again? That would be popular...

I honestly don't know what is the right thing to do. Whatever happens though, it must be a joint effort led by the UN.

Could somebody let the UN investigators do their thing before hitting the missile button?

I know that's a popular way of viewing the situations on forums, but whether you believe they don't actually care or not, I think there is plenty of reason to hope that they'll do something. They've already been responding to the civil war through supplying arms and support to the opposition since last year, and this would simply be an escalation of that investment in the effort. The opposition can fight back against tanks and helicopters, but they can't fight chemical weapons. Not in any meaningful way.

Even if you think every leader or every citizen in the world is evil, there is reason for people to intervene in this conflict. A coordinated strike on Syria's chemical weapons delivery systems and the establishment of a no-fly zone can go a long way, and even if those in the opposition won't necessarily be favorable to those helping them, there's at least a chance they'll be better than Assad. It's a mess, but it's a mess the international community needs to intervene in.

Edit: I'm really getting tired of these double posts.

I did some further digging and research on the various evidence provided in the video, and there are some additional room for doubt. The argument to support the idea that the rebels used Sarin that was procured overseas comes from a case in May where it was reported that Turkey found Sarin in the homes of a suspected rebel.

However, what the video does not mention is that said rebel was a suspected Islamist with ties to Al Qaeda, as opposed to the US backed rebel factions. Additionally, the reporting seems to mostly come from RT, a news organization funded by the Russian federal government. If we are to be wary of information from major news sources as potentially manipulative, this is also one of these cases.

Edit: There are arguments made that the Al Qaeda linked rebel group, Al Nursa, are in fact CIA backed. However, aside from the various minor websites that state this as a matter of fact, there are only two other sources for this: one being a video where a former Al Qaeda member recently released from jail in Egypt accused the head of Al Nursa to be a CIA operative, and a second that tried to pose the CIA as being in charge of of the rebel's weapon supply in Qatar.

While its certainly worth further consideration, firm evidence is not given in either case. Abu Mohammed al-Jawlani's video in fact doesn't seem to offer any evidence what so ever outside of his accusation itself, and the article trying to confirm the the Qatar angle only offers evidence of CIA involvement in Qatar's distribution of humanitarian and military aid as opposed to it being in charge of it, the idea that it initially poses.

I think there is significant evidence to believe that this was a chemical attack carried out in multiple areas by the Syrian regime, along with possible earlier attacks reported this year. Though, even if by some surprise they were not behind it, it seems like it's high time that the international community get involved anyway. We're talking about a regime that has been actively bombing civilian hospitals and leveling whole neighborhoods with the simple justification that anyone not within territory they actively control is an enemy of the state. They have been monstrous, and a no-fly zone should have been established ages ago. That this incident might be the spark that gets the action finally taken, then so be it.

It's unfortunate that UN investigators weren't allowed to the scene until almost a week later, but I am confident they will likely find reason to support the belief that the Syrian regime did in fact carry out this attack. If they did, then other countries should take action to prevent another strike. And if they didn't, then other countries need to both take action to stop whoever did do it and finally stop the mass slaughter of civilians by the regime.

The rich need them to keep their profits in dollars.

The countries that turn away the dollar are getting tortured. Civilians are getting gassed by chemical weapons... That stuff makes you die a slow painfull death. Your insides literally melt away..

Still believing the ''bad guy'' or current trendy media installed '' boogeyman'' propaganda.

We have no business in other peoples affairs. We shouldn't disrupt and alter the course of events of other countries based on faulty or incomplete information. We should just deal with our own people and fix our own shit. We will make less enemies, lose less lives and be able to make more improvements at home.

While I am not an American, I feel like US or any sort of intervention is a bad idea. Yes, chemical weapons are bad. Yes, innocent blood has been spilt in Syria. I am not trying to talk down the absolutely atrocious things that we have heard about but is the possible consequences from military intervention worth it?

I am not a historian or diplomat but I do fear that military intervention in Syria may snowball into something much worse. Russia and Iran are both allies of Syria. You could even tie China and North Korea into that group if you stretch it a bit. Western intervention may turn into a good thing, or it could take a nose dive and start something else entirely.

It's not an easy answer but I would state that I do think that potential consequences of military intervention may not be worth the risk, at least not at this stage.

The Middle East is a powder keg that should not be ignored. A show of power is sometimes the only recourse. But as of right now, it's all wind blowing the sails. Syria is an interesting place. If action is called for, I'm all in. But I'm an old Navy guy, so the fuck I know.

The Middle East is a powder keg that should not be ignored. A show of power is sometimes the only recourse. But as of right now, it's all wind blowing the sails. Syria is an interesting place. If action is called for, I'm all in. But I'm an old Navy guy, so the fuck I know.

Yes, if only to spite the UN and prove to the world how useless they really are.

If it's a genuinely international affair, if the Syrian regime have turned out to have used chemical weapons...I'd still not be comfortable with it personally, but I could understand it. But the usual NATO nations jumping in before the weapons inspectors have had a chance to investigate? No, we should probably learn from the mistakes of the disaster of invading Iraq 10 years ago.

Help people leave the country if they want to, that's it.

I think that Obama is playing this one pretty sly. By allowing this to go on indefinitely, terrorists and jihadists can take an easier path and fight a secular evil in their own neighborhood. It's real world political calculus...Not nice or fair, but I think that is what has been happening up until now, and will continue to happen. The right thing to do is help people that are being terrorized by their government, but political action has nothing to do with objective morality.

I mean, what's the benefit of letting the resistance win? What are our analytical comps? Egypt? Libya? Iraq? That all worked out great. I'd be surprised if there is any more than token action, big talking, and boat maneuvering.