Syria

[?????]

What do you guys think about Syria?

Should foreign (to Syria) nations take military action? Should the rebels be funded? Should al-Assad be the one that receives support?

[anus]

Nice to see a fellow member care about Syria. So I guess I'll go on a blarb.

It's reached the point where foreign military action is a total necessity at this point. What needs to be understood is that Syrians, like all Arabs, never desired foreign military assistance at first. It is the West who is partially responsible for instilling the despotic regimes in the first place (read up on post-ottoman empire history), which is why Arabs have always wanted the responsibility of instilling their own leader. This is what made the Egyptian revolt so special; it was Arab born, bred, and carried through, without Western intervention.

However, its reached an incredibly dire situation in Syria. This is a country has ALWAYS been under al-Assad's ruthless regime. My parents are both from Syria, and we've had the opportunity to go back multiple times. This corruption and extreme repression has been going on a while. My sister once at the age of 6 asked my mother why so many pictures of the President were up, and my mom hushed her, afraid that a 6 year old was going to get the family into trouble. We don't even speak loudly in our house over there, as we're afraid its bugged. The repression has been to that extent.

In short, the al-Assad dynasty has been a terror since the current president's father rose to power. His father was responsible for flattening an entire town in a week, and were it not for the media coverage it has received, Bashar would have done the same. Not only must Bashar leave office, but the entire system must be wiped clean. Bashar is a root of the problem, but he has an unbelievable number of cronies and such advising him. His brother controls the military, his father's advisors advise him, his mother has sway, etc.

Funding the rebels is important, but even armed rebels stand no chance against the regime. Syria is a country that has absolutely nothing; all of the resources have been poured into the regime's pocket and the army. The army is very well developed, trained, and equipped, and most importantly, the majority are loyal to the president for sectarian/financial reasons. Plus throw in the fact that Iran, Russia, China, Venezuela, etc are helping. Funds or no funds, the rebels would get fucked. Plain and simple.

To Syrians, this was never a matter of if, but when. There are at least 10,000 killed, and probably more than triple that in captivity.

In addition, the regime seems like it has the support of a large chunk of people, but honestly, the percentage is a lot less. Many people are paid to go out to demonstrate in support of the president - mercenaries, if you will, since the country is pretty poor. The rest have either benefited financially from the regime (witness the very limited demonstrations in the business city of Aleppo) and Alawites who are (justifiably) afraid for their well being.

[?????]

Who exactly are the rebels? I'm for helping people gain their freedom, but it's not responsible to arm others without knowing who they are first.

Like you said, the West is responsible for installing many governments. What's to say that Western intervention will not lead to another puppet government?

Of course, it does not help that the Syrian government actively represses information.

[anus]

Honestly, the rebels are just essentially civilians. It's not like some minor faction. The rebels are a collection of defected soldiers, husbands, brothers, and sons that are fighting for freedom. Admittedly, they are very disorganized, and the Syrian National Council (the de-facto head of the rebel cause) is very disorganized, with intra-fighting, jealousy, basically what you expect out of Middle Eastern politics. The rebels aren't as organized as in Egypt and Libya because the regime has been much more brutal.

It's certainly possible Western intervention will lead to a puppet government; in fact, its probably likely. However, just look at the situation. A city is getting endlessly shelled by its own government. The rebels quite literally have ZERO chance without Western/foreign intervention. Again, the situations in Egypt and Libya were very different. Neither of those two countries had staunch allies like Syria does, and neither has the military cohesiveness and organization that the Syrian Army has. The current regime is much more secure and together than the regimes of Egypt and Libya.

Syrians are willing for a chance at another temporary despotic government because of the situation. It's that bad. Some of the videos online at the scene are absolutely horrific. Words can't describe it.

I'm really not for arming the rebels so much as I am for foreign intervention, but I'm obviously biased. I have family there, my whole lineage is from that country. To see it get worse is heartbreaking, and I feel that foreign intervention would end it the quickest. The rebels obviously also needs intelligence as well as arms. Throwing guns to them won't help at all.

If the Syrian regime succeeds, the iron grip the regime already holds on the people will tighten further. Facebook, if I recall correctly, had been banned up until shortly before the protests started. That'll revert to the way it was, and the already restricted freedoms will be even more restricted. Basically, life will revert to what it was, which was fairly shitty.

[Socks]

I feel that at this point we are beyond mere dialogue and talk of Syria, action should have happened some time ago by the so called 'international community'. Assad has no credibility or mandate left, more so, him and those around him are butchers, and thieves, their only claim to power is the use of force. In the ultimate law of the land that no single man is greater in strength than the combined will and arms of an entire populace. This is the war going on from the beginning of time, and the basis of government. It is truly despicable and regretful that we are doing nothing to remove this bastard and make way for change in the middle east, whatever it may be, it cannot be what it currently is, a dictator who murders his own people.

Of course China and Russia have their own vested interests in the regime, and geopolitical games are being played, with women, men and children as pawns upon a great big world. But, history, and our collective conscience, if we have one, will judge us differently and in a very harsh light. And if it is to be smothered, and forgotten over for another 30 years, don't be shocked when it comes haunting your children, or even grandchildren. Whole families have been wiped out, others dislocated, people shuffling across boarders, buying weapons and ammo, because they don't need food or milk, when their very survival is at stake. It is very sad and shameful. At least let the people choose their own destiny.

[?????]

So where should the line be drawn? When is it okay for military intervention? Should it be used against Kony? Should it also be used again Iran and North Korea?

[Socks]

So where should the line be drawn? When is it okay for military intervention? Should it be used against Kony? Should it also be used again Iran and North Korea?

I mean, at what level do you want to approach this from? It all boils down to what theory you favor the most, as in, appeal to for ultimate authority. If it is the diplomatic, nation state concept of international affairs, then it can become mired in a myriad of interests, circumstances and policy making. However, if you ascribe to the basic notion of freedom, then you can rightly assert that the only thing keeping Assad in power is the indiscriminate and disproportional use of force between a people, and between ideologies. This is in contrast with every natural law which rules with tyranny of the majority. And so, we are just as wrongly as Assad, to rightly intervene and turn the tide against his regime, which, believe it or not, is very small and fragile. It simply depends on the security apparatus of the state to ensure its own existence. But, if you still believe in yet another alternative, that it is not prudent to get involved at all, and merely let it settle as it will, then you are simply not choosing anything at all. It is a very passive way to look at present, as history in the making. I suppose there are other factors, and I don't want to list them all, but in each and every case that you listed, the situation is a bit different, and ask me tomorrow how I feel about them, or what the case there is. Today, this is how I feel, and we should have done something yesterday.