'Nine questions about Syria you were too embarrassed to ask'
I want to clarify, I don't think that we can just sit back and do nothing - but why aren't the UN peace keepers the ones getting involved? Why is it America? A lot of countries around the world are sick of us Westerners thinking we know it all and always getting involved.
DH and I were gassed and robbed (yes you read that right) on a train in Bosnia years ago and needed an interpreter from the US embassy for dealing with the police in Sarajevo. We walked with her for a while between the two locations and she spoke to us about what it was like during the war and how there was a lot anger for a while that the US took so long to intervene. Why didn't UN peacekeepers handle that?
thats not what I meant
I was making a general observation as to how it is okay for some countries to do what ever they want against other countries and no one questions them because they are a super power..
and if syria is attacked than wont its own people come under threat and be killed, passed on as ''civilian casualties''? I dont know how this can be solved but looking at how Iraq and Afghanistan civilians have suffered I just dont wish for syrians to go through the same
I dont have an answer for what can be done but is war the only answer...
I have afew syrian friends and just looking at how upset and scared they are for their loved ones and their country is heart breaking...
The problem with the Syrian conflict, are the rebels are linked with Al Queda. This just smacks so much of the whole Osama Bin L debacle - it really does.
We don't want the Syrian government to be gassing their own people, but we certainly don't want to be helping the rebels get powerful either. It is a no win situation.
Now there are reports coming out that the chemical attacks where accidentally done by the rebels. We don't even know what is going on over there - yet everyone wants to jump into another war - when we already have others on the go.
'...The whole idea that there are rules of war is a pretty new one: the practice of war is thousands of years old, but the idea that we can regulate war to make it less terrible has been around for less than a century. The institutions that do this are weak and inconsistent; the rules are frail and not very well observed. But one of the world’s few quasi-successes is the “norm” (a fancy way of saying a rule we all agree to follow) against chemical weapons. This norm is frail enough that Syria could drastically weaken it if we ignore Assad’s use of them, but it’s also strong enough that it’s worth protecting. So it’s sort of a low-hanging fruit: firing a few cruise missiles doesn’t cost us much and can maybe help preserve this really hard-won and valuable norm against chemical weapons....
'Fair point. Here’s the deal: war is going to happen. It just is. But the reason that the world got together in 1925 for the Geneva Convention to ban chemical weapons is because this stuff is really, really good at killing civilians but not actually very good at the conventional aim of warfare, which is to defeat the other side. You might say that they’re maybe 30 percent a battlefield weapon and 70 percent a tool of terror. In a world without that norm against chemical weapons, a military might fire off some sarin gas because it wants that battlefield advantage, even if it ends up causing unintended and massive suffering among civilians, maybe including its own. And if a military believes its adversary is probably going to use chemical weapons, it has a strong incentive to use them itself. After all, they’re fighting to the death.
So both sides of any conflict, not to mention civilians everywhere, are better off if neither of them uses chemical weapons. But that requires believing that your opponent will never use them, no matter what. And the only way to do that, short of removing them from the planet entirely, is for everyone to just agree in advance to never use them and to really mean it. That becomes much harder if the norm is weakened because someone like Assad got away with it. It becomes a bit easier if everyone believes using chemical weapons will cost you a few inbound U.S. cruise missiles.
That’s why the Obama administration apparently wants to fire cruise missiles at Syria, even though it won’t end the suffering, end the war or even really hurt Assad that much.'
Pregnant for the first-time?
Not sure where to start? We can help!