Jump to content

Human Mercy And Syria


Recommended Posts

So Americans are very used to cut and dried solutions to so many issues, I think out of watching so much TV. Sometimes I get extremely frustrated with Americans and their narrow views. Insufferably, I am one also, so that leaves me little room to complain. :(   Now, our president wants to launch air strikes against Syria, but whom would those strikes go against?  Did we not learn from the war that other president started?  Having been closely associated with Middle Eastern culture through the Muslims, it seems to make my mixed feelings doubly intractable.

 

In talking with Muslim friends and some of the UK friends I have, there just seems to be no clear enemy, or at least one that we can stop with a few bombs. On one hand, I fully support our not going there, but on the other, there is the loss of Human life, mostly women and children.

 

Oddly,  my UK friend, a sea captain who has traveled extensively there, says that it is Christians, Shias and Sunnis involved in a three way donnybrook.

 

I think I shall go for a long bike ride and see if the situation gets better without my worrying about it.  Sitting here wringing my hands seems to do no good what so ever.   Storm Rider, I should especially like to see what you have to say about this.

Link to comment

Any intervention will have less to do with Syria and more to do with the proliferation of chemical weapons. They are the poor man's nuke. Any strikes will be punitive and will tell the world, "DO NOT use chemical weapons or we will CUT you." The worry is that if we let it slide other nations and groups may construct and use them as we will have established a precedent for not retaliating. They have limited military application. They do make for fantastic civilian terror weapons.

Chemical weapons are also horribly easy to use. They are pretty easy to manufacture, easy to siphon to non-government forces without detection, much easier to smuggle then nukes (no radiation), and are just plain nasty.

Any retaliation is to send a message; air strikes and cruise missile attacks are unlikely to have much of a real impact on the civil war.

Link to comment

Any intervention will have less to do with Syria and more to do with the proliferation of chemical weapons. They are the poor man's nuke. Any strikes will be punitive and will tell the world, "DO NOT use chemical weapons or we will CUT you." The worry is that if we let it slide other nations and groups may construct and use them as we will have established a precedent for not retaliating. They have limited military application. They do make for fantastic civilian terror weapons.

Chemical weapons are also horribly easy to use. They are pretty easy to manufacture, easy to siphon to non-government forces without detection, much easier to smuggle then nukes (no radiation), and are just plain nasty.

Any retaliation is to send a message; air strikes and cruise missile attacks are unlikely to have much of a real impact on the civil war.

As I understand it, the Alawhite rulership is an extension of Shia Islam. It has been confusing to understand this because the Alawhites do not seem to observe Hijab. One UK friend said that they were christian, but wiki does not agree. I can understand punitive strikes, but you must know that the Shia Muslims will be quite upset. My first impulse would be to send a cruise missle right into the palace there, but then there is the British born and raised wife there. What has she to do with any of it? Their present ruler, I am told did not ever expect to rule there and did not wish to have the job.

Link to comment

As I understand it, the Alawhite rulership is an extension of Shia Islam. It has been confusing to understand this because the Alawhites do not seem to observe Hijab. One UK friend said that they were christian, but wiki does not agree. I can understand punitive strikes, but you must know that the Shia Muslims will be quite upset. My first impulse would be to send a cruise missle right into the palace there, but then there is the British born and raised wife there. What has she to do with any of it? Their present ruler, I am told did not ever expect to rule there and did not wish to have the job.

It should not matter, Muslims killing Christians or Christians killing Muslims. The point is this...we cannot allow such aggression to go unchecked. If we do sanctions and withhold trade, money, medical supplies, then we are hurting children, if we attack with bombs we hurt children (women and children) through collateral damage. If any Nation can assist another and do not this is called indifference. Any one of the three I listed are sins.

One thing I have found out in my life, is this...

God does not judge us in relation to the outcome of any conflict, he judges us in relation as to how we act, or how we don't act.

Link to comment

It should not matter, Muslims killing Christians or Christians killing Muslims. The point is this...we cannot allow such aggression to go unchecked. If we do sanctions and withhold trade, money, medical supplies, then we are hurting children, if we attack with bombs we hurt children (women and children) through collateral damage. If any Nation can assist another and do not this is called indifference. Any one of the three I listed are sins.

One thing I have found out in my life, is this...

God does not judge us in relation to the outcome of any conflict, he judges us in relation as to how we act, or how we don't act.

Sadly, sometimes the best action is inaction. If I was Obama I would lob a few cruise missiles at chemical weapon depots. Maybe follow up with some shots at command structures and communication infrastructure controlled by the government to tell them to knock it off with the chemical munitions and call it a day. Stepping in is a quagmire. The government has proved itself unfit to rule. The rebels are heavily factionalized and the few factions that were moderate are radicalized now. If they win we get a warlord state or ongoing civil war. We cannot effectively help.

Link to comment

Sadly, sometimes the best action is inaction. If I was Obama I would lob a few cruise missiles at chemical weapon depots. Maybe follow up with some shots at command structures and communication infrastructure controlled by the government to tell them to knock it off with the chemical munitions and call it a day. Stepping in is a quagmire. The government has proved itself unfit to rule. The rebels are heavily factionalized and the few factions that were moderate are radicalized now. If they win we get a warlord state or ongoing civil war. We cannot effectively help.

The unfortunate thing is that we sat around and talked about it too long. As in Iraq, where Sadam deliberately put women and children as human shield, Assad will have time to make his military not accessable except by killing the innocent.

 

I can't remember how it all worked out, but President Clinton used cruise missles a couple of times and that was without warning. It is to late for that in Syria.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...