Simple question, how does bombing Syria help the situation?

[Hippo_Tron]

I have not 100% made up my mind that I oppose intervention, but I'm about 80-90% of the way there. I'm seriously open to considering the merits of intervention, but thus far I haven't heard any.

Essentially, bombing Syria would tip the balance to the rebels and presumably help them come to power. Is doing that really going to end the violence? Or is it just going to continue with the Alawites in the resistance rather than in the government? Because that seems to be precisely what's going on in Iraq right now.

If somebody can show me evidence that intervention will likely save lives, I'll seriously consider it. But "he used chemical weapons and we can't just do nothing" isn't a reasonable justification for bombing, at least not in my opinion.

[Scootaloo]

1. Here's the problem with "the rebels coming to power"

...There is no one "Rebel" group. There's about a half-dozen that have come up with fun names for themselves and no doubt several other gangs and militia who are just doing their thing. Taking down Assad or smashing up his military isn't going to unite these guys - they're as much enemies of each other as they are enemies of the Syrian government. it's not like Libya where the divided factions at least had a common goal. If Assad falls, these factions are most likely going to turn their guns on each other.. .except now they'll be supplemented by assorted former military forces and equipment.

The only possible types of intervention that would save lives (in the long run; there is no bloodless intervention) is either reversing our policy and backing Assad to quell the insurgency... Or sending in ground and air forces to force cease-fires and no-go zones, similar to what NATO did in eastern Europe.

Anything else is just going to make it a bigger shitstorm.

[Hippo_Tron]

4. Here's what doesn't make any sense to me...

The United States and Israel seem hell bent on fighting a two-front war against both Sunni and Shia extremists. These two factions absolutely hate each other. Why is it that we're completely unwilling and/or unable to use that to our advantage?

Hamas is lost its two biggest client states because it backed a rebel group in this conflict and Hezbollah's resources are so tied up trying to helping Assad that I doubt they'll be launching any offensives against Israel anytime soon.

I keep hearing that if we don't intervene, Israel's security will be threatened. It seems to me like this conflict has been nothing but good for Israel's security.

[msongs]

2. ya can't sell more bombs etc unless the current stock is used up. nt

[magical thyme]

3. Syria is next on PNAC's list, and opens the door to bomb-bomb Iran,

the last country on their list, so it helps PNAC achieve it's goals.

It helps the MIC keep their 24x7x365 wars going.

It tips the civil war away from Assad and back toward the rebels. We don't want either side to win, which Assad was starting to do.

Mass murdering people by bomb is somehow less obscene and more acceptable than mass murdering people by gas.

Murdering the Syrian people by bomb will stop Assad from murdering them by gas first.

It provides a distraction away from the NSA scandal.

Also, the price of oil is heading back up, so it helps exxon, mobil, shell, bp, etc.

[spin]

5. Excellent questions and I too have not made up my mind. ...

What concerns me is that if the wrong side wins some very lethal weapons may end up in the hands of those who might give them to terrorists to attack Israel, nations in Europe or our own nation. Of course I should point out that to me the use of these weapons against innocent civilians in Syria is also just as unacceptable.

Of course it could be argued that if your enemies are busy killing each other it is wise to not intervene.

Perhaps the best solution is for the UN to step in and take control of the weapons of mass murder. Perhaps it would have been far better if the UN had been set up to take action in such a situation despite the opposition by nations such as Russia and China. Perhaps the UN should be the only military force in the world to have access to WMDs and a large enough military force to take on any nation in the world.

But if the UN actually had that power, I wonder if it is possible that it might become a world dictatorship? Would it have the power to tax and confiscate the wealth in the well to do nations and transfer it to the poorer nations? Would corruption in the UN cause the transfer of wealth to flow to certain favored people and not to help truly impoverished people? Would the taxation of the wealthy in the more advanced nations stifle technological advancements and limit the advance of our civilization?

But for our civilization to survive we need to find a way to control WMDs before we destroy all that we have accomplished in our short history.

I personally feel that we are not the only intelligent civilization in our galaxy and that a few have been able to move beyond their home planet and to populate near stars or even more. We are currently in a testing phase. If we can find a way to rein in our basic instinct for warfare, we may spread through our solar system and also reach the near stars. If we fail and misuse the technology we have developed we will, at the best, have to start all over again.

The universe is a very violent environment. One large rock can totally destroy us or if a volcanic caldera such as exists under Yellowstone has a massive eruption our civilization will suffer a significant setback. A civilizations time to develope the technology to leave its planet is limited. Warfare is a great driver for technological advancement and so probably most successful civilizations have probably had to overcome the same base instincts that we have.

Can we find a way to overcome our innate personality and learn how to get along with each other before we destroy ourselves or a natural catastrophe ruins our planet?

I have to admit that I am pessimistic.

[dtom67]

6. simple answer.....

Profit for All!

Oh, you mean help the Syrians?


Who cares?

[Coyotl]

7. That's like asking Qadaffi how bombing Libya helped the situation?