TO BE OR NOT TO BE?

As most of you know, Syria's current civil war has lasted since March 2011. Since its independence in 1946, the country's suffered multiple struggles, from military coups to uprising, riots, and now, the UN peacekeeping chief states that, "in his view, Syria has entered a period of civil war."

The U.S. has lent a helping hand to Syria in the last two years, but some question if the “Obama Doctrine”, an effective method used in Libyan conflicts the previous year, will be effective enough to end the Civil War.

Obama also said that “if we end up rushing to judgment without hard, effective evidence, then we can find ourselves in the position where we can’t mobilize the international community to support what we do.”
Makes sense. We don’t want another “war on terrorism”. Taking time to think this through and effectively strategize is damned important. But, when time is of the essence, and pressure that the the Obama Doctrine is not enough, how much time can we spare before acting?

However, those near the chaos, such as the Israeli government, urge the United States to not take military action in Syria, despite recent intelligence of President Bashar al-Assad OK-ing the use of chemical warfare on his own people.

But Wait! There are still some Israeli officials and analysts that believe "Mr. Assad was testing Mr. Obama and that failure to act could send a signal to Iran that American threats were not to be taken seriously."

"Obama will never get the concrete evidence he wants unless there's a full U.N. investigation, to which Assad will not agree," said Abdulwahab Omar, a Syrian anti-Assad activist based in London.
"That means Obama will never be obliged to do anything," he said. "You can call it a bluff. He tried to show that the United States would be prepared to intervene when things get serious, when in reality, the U.S. is not prepared to intervene unless its own interests are directly affected."

I couldn't help but laugh at this the first time I read it.

What is the U.S. government's job regarding international affairs as a superpower?

What does the world think we should do?

As I watch the news, commentators sound more and more like we're the only ones who can do anything about Syria. Almost making sound like it's the duty of the United States as a super power.

Last time I checked, we may be the only superpower, and we have been the largest donor of humanitarian assistance to Syria, but we’re not the only nation that can lend a helping hand.

According to the rebels, they are receiving financial assistance from Arab countries, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, but they say that the absence of arms aided from the outside leave them vulnerable still.
Why won’t people urge another major nation to get involved?
Why is it that no one's complaining about their lack of action?

I partially understand; those with power should help those who are powerless, and what's going on over there is nothing short of horrible... But U.S. forces can’t just go in alone or else it’d be a waste of lives and time and money, and I truly believe that. And providing arms is still argued about, “largely because of the [United Nations’] uncertainty regarding who exactly would receive the arms”, though as of yesterday, the U.S. government is once again considering it. If anything, people should be evacuated, but who is willing to uproot their entire lives and let the “bad guys” win?

Something needs to be done, but what?

Sources:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/30/us-syria-crisis-iran-idUSBRE93T0I320130430

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/29/world/middleeast/israel-says-its-not-asking-us-to-intervene-in-syria.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/27/opinion/5-reasons-to-intervene-in-syria-now.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/02/world/middleeast/us-and-other-countries-move-to-increase-assistance-to-syrian-rebels.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/01/world/middleeast/bomb-in-central-damascus.html?_r=0

I know that the article is long, but basically how should the world handle Syria? Or should we not get involved at all ?

The U.S. has gotten involved a lot with the MIddle East in general. I think it's time to step back. I think it's ok to send relief and aid, but other than that, I don't think the U.S. should get involved any further.

America already sends billions of dollars in relief and aid to the middle east, why should we send even more?
Oh, I know it's tragic to see some people halfway across the globe struggle and all but the same country that rants and raves for democracy and uprising against tyranny is the same country that says its citizens don't need a way to defend themselves.

Damn murica.

>>4 ...................... You show an amazing lack of empathy. I'm sure you would not have the same ideas if you were not sitting at home comforatbly on your computer right now. Grow the fuck up, other humans need to be helped too. And just checking, are you saying that America should not go help Syria because it would be hyporitical due to the fact they are attempting to tighten gun control laws? (Believe it or not guns are not the only way to defend yourself anyway) You sir, are not a good human being.

>>6
Not a good human being huh?
And you tell me. What other ways do you have to defend yourself? With a knife? Maybe from some mugger. With your fist? Maybe in a bar brawl. But from the tyranny you are blind to apparently? You are going to want a firearm, and I don't mean those whimpy ass single shots and double barrels that Biden suggest you use, a man was killed for taking that advice. I'm not saying that you should want to protect yourself with an AR-15, and if you think an AR is not the best way to defend yourself then by all means, don't use an AR-15. First, they might take my "assault weapon". But then they'll want my pistol, and then when they want my right to speak freely of the government(Not slandering),I'll have no way to protest back because words don't seem to work for our "representatives".
Now, on the topic of my empathy, well let's just say you can have your opinion. But I refuse to help yet another country that's going to scream and yell about being oppressed then turn around and turn into another State of Islam that is more than willing to prosecute me and other like me just for our nationality. If they get their "freedom" on their own, very well . But did you know we helped the Taliban in Afghanistan to fight back the Soviet Union by giving them anti-air rockets, FIM-29 Stingers to be exact, but these rockets are the same ones they use to shoot down our helicopters, killing our soldiers?
We gave Egypt 200 M1 Abrams tanks, why? For appeasement so they wouldn't attack Israel. Seems pretty dumb to me, give a hostile nation state of the art masterpieces of war so they won't attack our allies? Not to mention the billion dollars we give them each year. I wouldn't mind sending food, nor medicine, but not money so they can build up armies of radicals that they are likely to use against us in the future.

>>7 The point is to save lives. If a few radicals will be a pain in our ass later, that's Later. And I don't think the government is debating over supplying them with anything high-tech. Just ammo or guns. And I doubt we're giving them billions in cash. We're giving millions in medical attentions, food, and water.

I wouldn't call about a third the population of every State of Islam a few. And if this administration is so worried about saving lives, then why would they use drone strikes against innocent civilians saying they were "terrorist" then hit rescue responders who came to aid the victims? And if we give them weapons they'll just end up being stockpiled and vanish into the black market wether they are successful or not. Food and medicine are the only things I would even consider providing

I believe that America needs to stay the fuck out of every countries bullshit. I mean we always end up digging our own graves by -dealing- with everyone elses shit and protecting the "little guy" and shit. I mean the rest of the world needs to figure its shit out so we can figure our shit out too. The other countries need to stop depending on us so much, y'know?

As I said in op, those with power have a duty to help the powerless.
We've learned from past wars and civillian casualties will of course be as low as we can make it. But during America's revolutionary war, didn't we too need foreign assistance? Without it, we mightve winded up in constant civil war and not a superpower, right? So what if a few Taliban living IN Syria will still hate on us? We're strong because we can take it. And saying we should just sit back and not care isn't a solution concerning enemies in the middle east. Don't you get it? They'll talk shit if we invade, and they'll talke shit if we don't. Which option saves more families, men, women, and children, and the elderly from catching bullets or bombs to the face?

>>7
No, dumbass automatic weapons are not all you need to defend yourself. Believe it or not you don't even need a knife. And how the fuck is walking around with portable death going to save you from tyranny? Oh no of course, 911, government, illuminati and such I'm sure. Guns are a two way road, for every gun that somebody buys to protect themselves, somebody buys to attack others. A guy recently shot his own toes off, thinking they were armed robbers, is that the kind of safety you rely on? Personally, I call it pointless paranoia. Not to mention if people can get automatic weapons so easily, you will end up with well... America's mass killing rate (More than all other first world countries combined)
People are allowed their own opinion,but yours is fucking terrible. It falls upon the strong to assist the weak. At least the strong with any source of empathy available. You are in a first world country, you have been given everything. Can you not put yourself in somebody elses shoes? I don't think you know very much about what happened in Islam. It only fucked up because we gave them lots of weapons then said "See ya" and left them to do whatever they want. Look at Charlie Wilson's War if you want to be correct on anything you preach. (Might be helpful).
All in all, I guess you must just be one of those 13% of people that are born without any source of consience or empathy. So its kind of pointless arguing with you.

Wow, harsh words from a pansi. I also think abortion is wrong after the first trimester, most controlled substances that are considered as such now should stay that way, welfare is complete shit sometimes, those on welfare should be drug tested, and women shouldn't be allowed into combat roles in the military unless women as a whole are willing to risk getting drafted such as men. Quite frankly, I'm sick of your ultra liberal shit and your questioning of my moral integrity. I was asked for my opinion and I was crucified for giving it. If you have anything else to say, then say it, but as I said I'm done with your shit. And lastly, don't fuckin tell me how fortunate I am, that my possessions were "given" despite the fact that I've sweated more than my fair share for my "prosperity" and charity.

I should've stepped in sooner, I'm sorry Marcello.

Debating is different from an ad hominem argument. I'm asking for people's opinions and if you disagree, don't attack THE PERSON, but THE ARGUMENT.

>>14 If gender equality is still an issue, then the only thing that should prevent a woman from being drafted is if she's pregnant. It's not fair because certain combat roles give you more pay. I'm pretty sure most U.S. military combat positions allow men and women enlistment. The only ones that don't are because the physical strength is more demanding than a female can usually handle.

>>14 Please use >> referrals because I can't tell if you are talking to me or the person who deleted their post.
Most likely them because I did not mention abortions or anything on that subject. (Still think your opinions sound pretty red neck) and, >>15 not sure if you would consider my previous statements attacking Marcello personally but will stop if you consider them so.

>>16 That makes SOOOO MUCH SENSE. I was confused as FUCK.
I thought Marcello was mad cuz you called him/her a dumbass. And then the women's rights thing... Let's just try to avoid name-calling in the future.

Anyway, I think Obama being extremely cautious (painful as it is) is the right thing to do. Multiple countries side with Syria's dictator and I hope he finds a way to keep them from losing their shit whilst preventing the horrible slaughters that are carried on over there. It's thin ice due to America's recent history of foreign conflicts but it is also a chance for him to prove his diplomatic worth. If we aren't careful however, we could end up with more botched operations after effects making America look like the bad guy they aren't always are.

>>18"You sir, are not a good human being.", "No, dumbass", " At least the strong with any source of empathy available.", "All in all, I guess you must just be one of those 13% of people that are born without any source of consience or empathy.", "not sure if you would consider my previous statements attacking Marcello personally but will stop if you consider them so."
Not a personal attack on Marcello? Sure seems like it.
And in reply-14 I think he was talking about you, seeing as how you did question his moral integrity, and you were the one to assume he's never worked for anything in his life.

>>19 mmm, in hindsight I probably could of kept some of them to myself ahaha, I just get pretty heated when people don't want to send aid because "They are halfway across the world", aplogies are given however.
Not sure if he was talking to me due to his mentions of Abortion, female drafting and welfare drug testing. Also, I think you misconstrued my statement about never working in his life. Due to the fact that he owns a computer and has enough free time to be on an internet forum site, of course he has quite a lot of luxuries bestowed upon him due to birth place and date.

>>20 I still don't see how hard it is to believe people can have nice things if they work for it. And the "Half-way around the globe." thing, maybe he's just tired of seeing all this attention and interest not going to people he sees suffer through life everyday. No one gives the homeless guy under the bridge a second thought but maybe to lock their doors. But a mass a people who seem to like to repeat history and put themselves in the same position gets as much as they can imagine.

Personally I think we should let someone else handle this one. I say let Israel handle things in the Middle East. They have one of the finest military in that region of the world. Why should they be asking us for help?

>>21 I know a lot of the homeless are there because of unfortunate circumstances, but there are those also there because they themselves continued to make the wrong choices and mishandle their own money. Syira is a civil war where all but the rich who may be avle to leave are dying.

>>22 They aren't, man. As I said in OP, "However, those near the chaos, such as the Israeli government, urge the United States to not take military action in Syria, despite recent intelligence of President Bashar al-Assad OK-ing the use of chemical warfare on his own people."

>>21 Read all his posts, I doubt thats what he meant.

I feel bad for these people. Getting gassed, murdered and blown to bits by some jerkass despot who just wants to preserve his own power and wealth. And they must feel like the world just doesn't give enough of a crap to help.

Kind of like Haiti, feels like those people never get better either. =(

Let's hope the US do a lot to help the people in Syria. And how long has this been going on?

More than 2 years now.

*UPDATE*

What do ya know? Things have gotten worse. Infinitely worse. And after reading this, do you all still believe in standing back and doing nothing?

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/15/world/middleeast/grisly-killings-in-syrian-towns-dim-hopes-for-peace-talks.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

My god...
This is looking like something we can no longer ignore and hope it goes away. Hopefully, more serious action than the UN moving in will take place. Look at how they fucked up the Bosnian war, the UN is good at keeping peace but terrible at enforcing it. It looks like neither sides of the war have officially agreed to peace talks either.

>>30 The UN in Bosnian war was not equipped to enforce peace. Literally. The weapon they came with was more of defense rather than offense nature. How could that match up to the bloodthirst at that time? Which was why they could not really do anything.

>>31 They certainly could of used defence a lot more effectively from what I have seen of the conflict. Infact, I would consider it more an inability to act rather than an attempt at instating peace. Also Syria is in a just as bloodthirsty situation as well, I just hope they do better than they do with most wars.

I would help if I could but I don't know how to. Suggestions?