There is already a huge flow of refuges into Turkey and other nearby countries.

 

There's always the possibility that it ends up like Rwanda, the DRC, and other humanitarian crises.

 

Is there not a point where enough people leave the country that it cripples their economy, and thus reduces incentive for China/Russia to keep helping them?

 

There's always the possibility that it ends up like Rwanda, the DRC, and other humanitarian crises.

There's also the possibility that doing something makes the situation worse as well.

Is there not a point where enough people leave the country that it cripples their economy, and thus reduces incentive for China/Russia to keep helping them?

They're in the middle of a civil war. Their economy is effectively already destroyed.

There's also the possibility that doing something makes the situation worse as well.

They're in the middle of a civil war. Their economy is effectively already destroyed.

 

If that's the case then it doesn't seem that Russia and China have anything to gain by defending Syria.

 

If that's the case then it doesn't seem that Russia and China have anything to gain by defending Syria.

I'm not going to pretend that I know Russia and China's geopolitical goals and strategies, but abandoning an ally when they're facing an internal rebellion and outside pressure isn't exactly a good signal to send to the rest of your allies.

That's already happened, there are millions of refugees. The international community is paying, somewhat, to keep them barely alive. The more of them there are, the more expensive that gets.

 

The other downside of doing nothing is that Assad and the rest of the world really begin to understand that there is no actual consequence to using chemical weapons in a civil war if the west doesn't have an economic interest in the country, and they start being employed and manufactured much more often (also increasing the likelihood they eventually wind up in the hands of terrorists). That and a much more rapid growing body count.

 

This chemical weapons thing is not good and really in its infancy. Hate to be a doomsayer but the future of the world looks pretty bleak right now.

Can you imagine the scene if terrorists use these things at events in big cities?

Edited August 27, 201312 yr by greg775

So then what if we just sit there and let this continue for a while. Then what? Don't people start leaving Syria by the tens of thousands until the country is just about empty?

Oh, I should also note, the fighting also has a tendency to follow these refugees into other countries and fighting has been reported in both Lebanon and Iraq associated with this mess.

 

This chemical weapons thing is not good and really in its infancy. Hate to be a doomsayer but the future of the world looks pretty bleak right now.

 

Modern chemical weapons have been used since WWI if not earlier, and the entire world was on the brink of nuclear annihilation numerous times throughout the 20th century. I don't think the threat the world faces is from weaponry.

Just one estimate, but here's a discussion of a 2012 paper that suggested military interventions on behalf of a rebelling population tended to lead to about a 40% increase in the killing rates.

Its not that hard to guess at what China/Russia are doing. They want to be counter-balances to the United States. Thus they take positions against the United States, even if there is not a direct benefit as there are potential indirect benefits.

 

And you cant really guess at civilian death tolls and what would have happened without intervention. Intervention generally comes at a time when the war is escalating, therefore it makes sense that casualties are going to be higher. What it does not (and what no one can do) is show how many people would have died if there was no intervention.

Its not that hard to guess at what China/Russia are doing. They want to be counter-balances to the United States. Thus they take positions against the United States, even if there is not a direct benefit as there are potential indirect benefits.

 

And you cant really guess at civilian death tolls and what would have happened without intervention. Intervention generally comes at a time when the war is escalating, therefore it makes sense that casualties are going to be higher. What it does not (and what no one can do) is show how many people would have died if there was no intervention.

 

The US getting into another World's Police Force situation is to our detriment, so Russia and China should be all about it. We waste money and weapons AND continue to look like terrible people for bombing another country.

Modern chemical weapons have been used since WWI if not earlier, and the entire world was on the brink of nuclear annihilation numerous times throughout the 20th century. I don't think the threat the world faces is from weaponry.

shhh this is greg logic we're talking about here.

The U.S. should not bomb Syria.

Edited August 27, 201312 yr by mr_genius

The U.S. should not bomb Syria.

soxtalk seems to be unanimous on this one

I had to spend yesterday watching the 3 major news networks coverage of Syria for a newsroom shift to do research. I don't know what's been discussed but...

 

China and Russia will frown on an international coalition against Syria, but will do nothing if it happens.

Military generals were meeting in Amman to discuss such a coalition.

The Assad regime is shady as f***.

Lots of US congressmen are worried about the chemical weapons making their way to US soil somehow.

A lot agree a precision strike on chemical weapon caches is the best plan.

4 Navy Destroyers in range, two aircraft carriers could be there in days.

 

I'd say the US needs to wait for a coalition to happen if it does before doing anything.

Chicago Tonight had a pretty good segment on it yesterday.

 

http://chicagotonight.wttw.com/2013/08/27/syrian-conflict

 

What's going to be accomplished by intervening? Most of the rebels are Koran-f***ing pieces of s*** so it's like Afghanistan all over again. Syria is far more developed than Afghanistan which barely qualifies as a society but still.

What's going to be accomplished by intervening? Most of the rebels are Koran-f***ing pieces of s*** so it's like Afghanistan all over again. Syria is far more developed than Afghanistan which barely qualifies as a society but still.

 

Well, if they can actually target and eliminate stockpiles of chemical weapons with minimal casualties, that is a worthwhile goal no matter how despicable the rebels are.

 

I had to spend yesterday watching the 3 major news networks coverage of Syria for a newsroom shift to do research. I don't know what's been discussed but...

 

China and Russia will frown on an international coalition against Syria, but will do nothing if it happens.

Military generals were meeting in Amman to discuss such a coalition.

The Assad regime is shady as f***.

Lots of US congressmen are worried about the chemical weapons making their way to US soil somehow.

A lot agree a precision strike on chemical weapon caches is the best plan.

4 Navy Destroyers in range, two aircraft carriers could be there in days.

 

I'd say the US needs to wait for a coalition to happen if it does before doing anything.

I agree this is the best plan. Now as soon as we can transport Harry Potter in and have him magically make them vanish with zero collateral damage, and then use spock to mind meld with everyone to figure out where the remaining caches are, we're set.

Is it true if we bomb Syria, then others bomb Jerusalem of all places? Sucks to be in Jerusalem minding your own business then boom!

Is it true if we bomb Syria, then others bomb Jerusalem of all places? Sucks to be in Jerusalem minding your own business then boom!

 

I doubt it. A lot of the Persian Gulf countries are US allies and wouldn't attack Israel.

 

The one that you'd have to worry about is Iran and if Iran wants to get into a battle with an international coalition of the US, Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Israel then they can go right ahead and get curb stomped.

Is it true if we bomb Syria, then others bomb Jerusalem of all places? Sucks to be in Jerusalem minding your own business then boom!

 

I love having greg in the buster.

 

also lol @ Jerusalem minding its own business (though maybe I'm watching too much West Wing)

I doubt it. A lot of the Persian Gulf countries are US allies and wouldn't attack Israel.

 

The one that you'd have to worry about is Iran and if Iran wants to get into a battle with an international coalition of the US, Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Israel then they can go right ahead and get curb stomped.

 

I went to Jason's Deli for lunch after "saving" 200 bucks on the last day of the sale at Kohl's here and was reading USA Today. The lead story was about Jerusalem natives getting their gas masks out of concern they might get hit. That would suck for them.

I went to Jason's Deli for lunch after "saving" 200 bucks on the last day of the sale at Kohl's here and was reading USA Today. The lead story was about Jerusalem natives getting their gas masks out of concern they might get hit. That would suck for them.

 

I mean, that's a constant risk in the Middle-East when you're Jewish.

 

But I'm sure that Israel has anti-air defenses and then whoever launched a missile would be completely and utterly boned.