Kucinich: Attacking Syria is Act of War

[AllPurposeAtheist]

Dear Miss Shoe,
Your frustration is well founded and duly noted, however we're not in decision positions and our respective governments rarely, if ever listen to us unless we happen to have several billion dollars and run a successful arms dealership.
I'm neither pro nor anti war here as my thoughts on the matter matter not one iota as to what may happen now or anytime in the future. I can write letters, but it along with another million or so will go unanswered and go ignored.
I happen to agree with you that war is folly, but at the same time does the world continue to sit idle and do nothing while thousands are slaughtered and millions are displaced in hopes that Syria resolves its differences without outside interference and if so how long does the rest of the world watch on?
I have no clue which side, if any is even worth even the pretense of support and the information we're given is sketchy at best.
Can war stop more war? It sounds good from the surface, but we both know that war is a huge money maker for those waging it for any reason so where does that leave us as citizens? We're to suppose our governments are in it for humanitarian reasons which we know is the lamest excuse imaginable? I too have my serious doubts, but if I were victim of the Assad regime I might feel entirely different begging a powerful nation to intervene. I'm not so the most I can do is to watch, wait and hope the right decisions are made for the right reasons knowing that is most likely not the case.
If you have a better idea I'd like to hear it, but as of now people are being killed one after another with little to no help from anyone and the irony is that the very people we propose to back are also our "sworn enemies" or at least a large portion are.
Is staying out an option? That accomplishes exactly what?
I'm at a loss as to what to think in this case. I really am.

[Colanth]

There is civil war in Syria. Bloody dictator figths against radical islamists. Why does US need to intervene in there?

Because there's no better way for us to totally screw up right now.  And that's our Middle East policy - screw up as much as possible.  (It's worked for many decades so far.)

[frosty]

What I am wondering, is why now, right now, is everyone playing the political "we are awoken" card. Controversial wars have been waged, including most recently in Libya, and not many people complained. Electronic devices have been logging our activity for years and years, and then all of a sudden when Snowden did his thing everybody felt offended that their electronic activity was being logged. The examples could spread on.

I am not disputing that what has happened recently is not corrupt. But I wonder why all of a sudden the buck will stop with Assad, who has shown that he is not the polished statesman he once claimed to be. In fact he is the exact opposite. Why, after everything that has happened, should Assad be the one to get a free ride?

Once again, I don't support intervention, but I do support a political transition in Syria. Kucinich is taking the right approach. I just don't see why just because a man wears a suit and tie, has a British wife and acts Western he can get away with everything he has done.

[aileron]

I just don't see why just because a man wears a suit and tie, has a British wife and acts Western he can get away with everything he has done.

Maybe it's because unlike Iraq and Libya, Syria is rapidly running out of oil.  Our "humanitarian" use of the military (how does one do that by the way?) does not extend to places without significant oil reserves, such as Rwanda or places we can get the oil by paying off the local juntas, such as Myanmar.

[Colanth]

Once again, I don't support intervention, but I do support a political transition in Syria.

A political transition to what the people of Syria want?  Or a political transition to what WE consider they SHOULD want?

Why should they be forced into a western-style democracy, when they're not westerners?  Why shouldn't they be allowed to choose their own path?  (Which, in the case of most of the Middle East, is tribalism.)  Where do we get off "paternalistically" imposing our way of life on them?

[frosty]

Once again, I don't support intervention, but I do support a political transition in Syria.

A political transition to what the people of Syria want?  Or a political transition to what WE consider they SHOULD want?

Why should they be forced into a western-style democracy, when they're not westerners?  Why shouldn't they be allowed to choose their own path?  (Which, in the case of most of the Middle East, is tribalism.)  Where do we get off "paternalistically" imposing our way of life on them?

Everybody is allowed to have their opinion, despite being pro this, or anti that, or neutral. I already explained why I think transition is the best option... I think a political transition is the best thing, so state institutions stay intact and the country does not completely collapse. Syria needs a functioning central state so different groups don't start killing each other more than they already are right now.

That being said, the major powers agreed on the transition plan, even Russia. Yes, Russia. That's the purpose of the Geneva 2 conference, to implement the plan of Geneva 1. Assad's regime has played around with Geneva for a while, sometimes hinting they will go, and other times flatly denying they will ever attend. So it's hard to tell what the fudge is going on.

I would also flip the tables and suggest the other side of the argument. Why should Syrians have to settle with a family dynasty ruling over them? There are many sides of this issue. Of course tribalism is an issue which is why Assad has lost control over vast swathes of Syria. He tried to crush the tribes and they fought back.

[Colanth]

Once again, I don't support intervention, but I do support a political transition in Syria.

A political transition to what the people of Syria want?  Or a political transition to what WE consider they SHOULD want?

Why should they be forced into a western-style democracy, when they're not westerners?  Why shouldn't they be allowed to choose their own path?  (Which, in the case of most of the Middle East, is tribalism.)  Where do we get off "paternalistically" imposing our way of life on them?

Everybody is allowed to have their opinion, despite being pro this, or anti that, or neutral. I already explained why I think transition is the best option... I think a political transition is the best thing, so state institutions stay intact and the country does not completely collapse.

So if the Syrians want the country to collapse, and state institutions to end, ???  We force something else on them?

Syria needs a functioning central state

Why does a tribal society need a State?

so different groups don't start killing each other more than they already are right now.

So if that's what they want - a tribal society in which they kill each other, you'd impose something else on them.

That being said, the major powers agreed on the transition plan, even Russia.

I notice that you don't include Syrians in that list.  So, as I said, we're being paternalistic - forcing our decision on them.

That's the purpose of the Geneva 2 conference, to implement the plan of Geneva 1.

With or without the consent of the people it's being imposed on.

I would also flip the tables and suggest the other side of the argument. Why should Syrians have to settle with a family dynasty ruling over them?

Because that's the system WE imposed on them?

Of course tribalism is an issue which is why Assad has lost control over vast swathes of Syria. He tried to crush the tribes and they fought back.

You got that one backwards.  We imposed statism on a tribal society, and it's not working.  It hasn't worked since the end of the Ottoman Empire (which is when we started imposing it).  Now our solution is to enforce statism even more?  Yes, of course.  If we do something and it fails, let's do more of it in the hope that if we do it often enough it'll work.

[frosty]

Sure, always interested in hearing your own subjective opinion on the war. That's cool. At the end of the day we just have to watch what happens, all I suggested was a settled solution to the conflict. There are many different opinions on how to end this but hopefully one day it really does end.

[Colanth]

all I suggested was a settled solution to the conflict.

Settled how?  The people involved ARE settling it now - THEIR way.  What you suggested was an IMPOSED solution, they'll live the way we tell them to.  Regardless of your calling it "settled", it's still imposed from without, unless you're suggesting that we just stay out of it and let them "settle" it.

[frosty]

This is going nowhere though. I've already said everything I've had to say. You've already given me your own subjective opinion on what's going on, according to your own subjective perspective. I've done the same. Nothing will be further accomplished by typing IN CAPS and multi quoting posts just to get an upper hand over each other, like I said we are only observers that at the end of the day have no real power to influence anything.