Beefy's Corner - The Off-Topic Chat Thread

Depends, as it is the only real hope for the rebels to succeed would be through the extremist groups, but with western backing, moderate groups may seem a better option.

 

In a war where neither side is what we'd consider the "good guys", we can't win. We just want it to be over as quickly as possible with minimal civilian casualties. We certainly don't want it being a stalemate, and we don't want Assad in power either.

Well thankfully that's why the US government hasn't supported the idea of actually joining the war. I don't think anyone can foresee a realistic outcome which is pleasing from a western, democratic point of view, so we just want the conflict to end and whomever governs the country after that is Syria's business.

 

I've heard someone before say that "America are the policemen of the world", which is absolutely true. If they want to spend billions on all these invasions and wars, it's up to them, but I'd rather the UK stayed out of it as it's not like America are lacking strength, as well as the costs.

 

IMO, looking at the big picture, Assad in power is better than the rebels

 

Not when he's gassing people he isn't.

 

Both sides are terrible, no doubt about that.

But which do you think will result in a more stable country?

 

Maybe I am being stupid, but why not a Libya-style no fly zone? Incorporating some strikes on military positions/hardware. It helped neutralise the unbalanced threat that Gaddafi forces had been brutally using and accelerated the end of the conflict without having a state v state war. The chemical attacks were shocking but even if they are gone, people are still getting killed by "normal" weapons, and Syria would probably dare not risk using them again and enraging the world any more.

I realise that Libya and Syria are not the same situations (partly because the Syrian rebels don't really seem to be winning the war) but still.

 

If a country is going through a civil war it is not up to the West or anyone else for that matter to get involved unless there are humanitarian issues, which in this case there certainly is. If and when the US and France do take action it should be to eliminate Assad's ability to use chemical Weapons. It shouldn't be about arming the rebels and changing the course of the conflict with regime change being the ultimate aim.

 

Assad's country was stable until he started depriving his citizens of their fundamental human rights. How can that country possibly go back to being stable under his regime now? There are Islamist states in the world which are relatively peaceful, even if many of their principles do conflict with ours.

 

The difference between the chemical attacks, and the other "normal" violence is that the chemical attacks purposefully targeted civilians, and also we tend to consider chemical weapons to be worse than "normal" weapons as they cause greater suffering. Most of the violence has been between Assad's forces and the FSA soldiers, rather than directed at regular civs.

I imagine airstrikes might be considered more of an act of war than a missile strike, which is really just a warning. The US really wants to avoid actually joining the war, and physically sending their military over there.

 

In a round about way I see what you're saying, and you're probably right. But in the short term the treatment he's giving needs to be stopped, and that's where the US come in.

 

Agree with this, otherwise it would have happened weeks, even months ago. I don't think a war is on the cards, I think there are definitely ways to minimalise the damage.

 

This is terribly sad. What a horrible thing to do.

http://dailym.ai/139B9Mz

 

I dislike the way the western powers are very selective about the human rights abuses that they see fit to be outraged about, and wish to intervene with military action to prevent.

Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and Syria yes

Zimbabwe, Yemen, Somalia, China - no

 

I really don't understand why people do this. I think I have more feelings for puppies than I do actual human babies

 

We and the US are very vocal about our outrage towards all of the above, but we always have to consider whether intervention would be practical or not, and sometimes it just isn't. Zimbabwe is a very complex situation which we could only really resolve by colonizing it again. Same with Somalia. China is just far too powerful and is an important ally which is steadily improving its citizens' quality of life.

We at least take diplomatic and charitable measures.

 

Well, China may be a bridge too far whatever their case, but I appreciate what you say. Zimbabwe, for example, has just elected Mugabe again. He swung that on fear alone.

 

You know what, I don't need to watch that.

 

Neither. There will be no stability while Assad is in power, and there will be no stability for years after he's gone. Such is the nature of any transitional state, but the Alawite domination of power is not going to last long.

 

You can add Rwanda, Sudan and Sierra Leone on to that list whilst you're there. I thorough recommend reading "A Long Way Gone" by Ishmael Beah about Sierra Leone, and "What Is The What" by Dave Eggers about Sudan for some genuinely human stories.