Total Posts:8|Showing Posts:1-8
Jump to topic:

NATO involvment in Syria

vbaculum
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2011 4:18:42 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
The Bashar Assad regime has killed over 3000 protestors since the begining of the Arab Spring. An untold number have been jailed and tortured. Somehow, after so many months, the Syrian's continue to protest peacefully. They have been asking for international involvement to protect them from their government (http://www.bbc.co.uk...). Do you support NATO interevention? Do you support any type of outside involvment?
"If you claim to value nonviolence and you consume animal products, you need to rethink your position on nonviolence." - Gary Francione

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it
vbaculum
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2011 5:06:56 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
LOL, I'd love to hear you guys elaborate.
"If you claim to value nonviolence and you consume animal products, you need to rethink your position on nonviolence." - Gary Francione

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it
Diagoras
Posts: 187
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2011 5:09:17 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Heck no.

1) It is good for them to learn to fight their own battles and take care of themselves. Even if that means some must die. Social Darwinism.

2) It results in less religious nuts, as thousands will die.
JuiceSqueeze
Posts: 109
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2011 5:31:51 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Well NATO is a joke anyways because it is basically the US and maybe Germany when they feel like it.

So call it what it is, US intervention.

What would the US's goal in Syria be? Israel defeated Syria in three consecutive wars and the US demanded Israel retreat from Syria whenever she was close to defeating it in a total war.

And Hafez is far more ruthless than Bashir. If Syria attacks Israel, or uses Hezbollah to attack Israel in order to distract from its civil war against anti-baathists, then yes the US should intervene or at least give regional allies the freedom to protect themselves without being hassled by the UN/Euros.

I don't see the US physically invading Syria.
vbaculum
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2011 5:56:08 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/28/2011 5:09:17 PM, Diagoras wrote:
Heck no.

1) It is good for them to learn to fight their own battles and take care of themselves. Even if that means some must die. Social Darwinism.

Paradoxically, I think that months of peaceful protests indicate they can fight their own battles. First it shows they are prepared for a modern democratic, civil government. The peaceful protests must have a purpose. I think it is to rally international support to their cause.

As I've said, they have lost thousands. They have been in a war. Their tactics are different - they're peaceful, but still purposeful. Their approach to "taking care of themselves" is to appeal for outside help. I think that has been their strategy all along and in the end it might work as it did in Libya.


2) It results in less religious nuts, as thousands will die.

Backward societies result in the most virulent forms of religion. Assisting pro-democracy revolutions (which always means secular revolutions) leads to societies that are more tolerant and modern and less pathological in their beliefs about the world.
"If you claim to value nonviolence and you consume animal products, you need to rethink your position on nonviolence." - Gary Francione

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it