General Discussion Should Western Countries try to Intervene in Islamic laws?

A lot of people throw the allegations that the western wrold only helps countries that have oil. Well, I have a different view point on that. Certain actions are unacceptable. Countries that kill/oppress their people should be wiped off the face of the earth. The situation in Syria should have been taken care of a long time ago. Although, after the situation is resolved, we should take whatever resources we need to take care of the cost of the war. After all, overthrowing dictators isn't free or cheap.

I'm sorry, but rash actions based on irrational emotion is too dangerous.

Decisions can't be based on feeling, but MUST be based and decided on what the possible outcomes will be.

1.) Just as was in Libya, the Rebel Forces everyone keeps cheering on "rah, rah" and our CIA is supplying by proxy via Turkey are directed and influence by Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood.

2.) Assad is deeply in bed with both the Chinese and Russians and Syrian Armed Forces aren't some 7-11 "knock around" types like the Republican Guard or Mujahideen Army. They pack serious Soviet hardware like the MiG-29SMT and Pntsir-S1 AAA.

3.) Russia has been revamping the old Soviet Naval Base at Tartus, currently park in the docks are four Akula-Class Ballistic Missile Submarines, the Guided Missile Cruiser " Moskva", Heavy Missile Cruiser "Pyotr Velikv" (Peter the Great) and three other ships, most likely Missile Frigates.

4.) Assad has used Chemical and Biological Weapons against the rebel forces, he would have no pause in using them against invading NATO Forces. Retaliation response for WMD attacks against NATO Forces is Nuclear.



If the US or NATO invaded Syria, not only will the Syrian Armed Forces not just roll over and allow NATO Forces to walk-in like Republican Guard, but Russia and China would have reason to start an international conflict, more some Russia with it's Naval Forces in Syria.

When, not if but when Syria Forces used Chemical or Biological weapons against invading NATO Forces, how exactly do they avoid starting an all out nuclear conflict?



Even if in the event NATO Forces did invade Syria Successfully without heavy losses or being attacked with Chemical or Biological weapons, Iran and other Islamic nations aren't going to sit in place and watch as it happens.

The situation in the Mid-East is already a powder keg ready to blow, tossing a lit match into the conundrum isn't a wise idea. Even if Human Rights and other violations have occurred.

 

I think as a people, the US can be egocentric. Judging other cultures based upon our own value and moral system. Who gives us the right to be the moral police? No one, that's why we haven't done anything yet, and will not likely to do anything unless there is an organized uprising, or a country that threatens another's sovereignty .

I think what a lot of people are doing when thinking about countries like Iran are thinking about it from an egocentric perspective. One must assume that if a person stays in these countries, that they consent to the laws and rules of the land. What a sovereign country does within its own borders is no ones business, less genocide and pointing nuclear warheads at their neighbors.

As far as Syria, I tend to look at kent state and other civil disobedience demonstrations that has happened in the US. If any citizens acted the way the people of Syria did (despite how just the cause is) the US government would act the same way.

We don't wage wars based upon people having ideological differences with us. Ideological differences are cultural relative, and we must respect other cultures in different countries regardless with how much we disagree with them.

 

I'm sorry, but rash actions based on irrational emotion is too dangerous.

Decisions can't be based on feeling, but MUST be based and decided on what the possible outcomes will be.

1.) Just as was in Libya, the Rebel Forces everyone keeps cheering on "rah, rah" and our CIA is supplying by proxy via Turkey are directed and influence by Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood.

2.) Assad is deeply in bed with both the Chinese and Russians and Syrian Armed Forces aren't some 7-11 "knock around" types like the Republican Guard or Mujahideen Army. They pack serious Soviet hardware like the MiG-29SMT and Pntsir-S1 AAA.

3.) Russia has been revamping the old Soviet Naval Base at Tartus, currently park in the docks are four Akula-Class Ballistic Missile Submarines, the Guided Missile Cruiser " Moskva", Heavy Missile Cruiser "Pyotr Velikv" (Peter the Great) and three other ships, most likely Missile Frigates.

4.) Assad has used Chemical and Biological Weapons against the rebel forces, he would have no pause in using them against invading NATO Forces. Retaliation response for WMD attacks against NATO Forces is Nuclear.



If the US or NATO invaded Syria, not only will the Syrian Armed Forces not just roll over and allow NATO Forces to walk-in like Republican Guard, but Russia and China would have reason to start an international conflict, more some Russia with it's Naval Forces in Syria.

When, not if but when Syria Forces used Chemical or Biological weapons against invading NATO Forces, how exactly do they avoid starting an all out nuclear conflict?



Even if in the event NATO Forces did invade Syria Successfully without heavy losses or being attacked with Chemical or Biological weapons, Iran and other Islamic nations aren't going to sit in place and watch as it happens.

The situation in the Mid-East is already a powder keg ready to blow, tossing a lit match into the conundrum isn't a wise idea. Even if Human Rights and other violations have occurred.

You are right that it is a powder keg. However, I am against wasting anymore time, resources, lives, and money in the middle east. The situation either needs to be resolved with finality or we need to leave them alone entirely.

I am not really worried about Assad. At the point that it is decided that he needs to be dead, it'll happen before he can trigger any kind of chemical warfare. Russia and China are not going to start a world war over Syria.

I think as a people, the US can be egocentric. Judging other cultures based upon our own value and moral system. Who gives us the right to be the moral police? No one, that's why we haven't done anything yet, and will not likely to do anything unless there is an organized uprising, or a country that threatens another's sovereignty .

I think what a lot of people are doing when thinking about countries like Iran are thinking about it from an egocentric perspective. One must assume that if a person stays in these countries, that they consent to the laws and rules of the land. What a sovereign country does within its own borders is no ones business, less genocide and pointing nuclear warheads at their neighbors.

As far as Syria, I tend to look at kent state and other civil disobedience demonstrations that has happened in the US. If any citizens acted the way the people of Syria did (despite how just the cause is) the US government would act the same way.

We don't wage wars based upon people having ideological differences with us. Ideological differences are cultural relative, and we must respect other cultures in different countries regardless with how much we disagree with them.

I don't know if this is in response to me, but in no way should the U.S. go into Syria or spearhead said action. I didn't mean to trigger any knee-jerk United States bashing. I'll be more clear. It should be the combined power of the rest of the world because that would be the quickest and most efficient way to get the job done. It would be another 10 or even 20 year conflict for one country to try to go in and resolve that situation.

Yeh I know some people are okay with Syria and other middle eastern countries claiming some kind of cultiral or religious right to kill and torture their citizens in mass, but I don't respect those rights.

 

You are right that it is a powder keg. However, I am against wasting anymore time, resources, lives, and money in the middle east. The situation either needs to be resolved with finality or we need to leave them alone entirely.

I am not really worried about Assad. At the point that it is decided that he needs to be dead, it'll happen before he can trigger any kind of chemical warfare. Russia and China are not going to start a world war over Syria.

We can't resolve the issue with any sort of finality. First it was just, Iraq, then Afghanistan, then Pakistan, then Libya...then what? Syria, Yemen, Iran, Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Lebanon, UAE, Cyprus, Qatar, Bahrain, Oman...ect, ect, ect...

As far as involving the world...we are the lions share of NATO. The two other massive countries with a huge military are both China and Russia, the largest military in Europe and second largest in NATO is the Turkish Military and they border Syria.

Last week Syria shot down a Turkish F-4 Phantom that had lost course and malfunctioning avionics, they didn't stop to ask questions, they just blew it out of the sky.



That's a common misconception among Westerners, dictators and warlords aren't a sole individual.

Syria has been under the rule of the Assad family since the 1970's, it's been a close ally of Russia and the former Soviet Union.

His regime is very organized and very loyal to him and the ideology. Your concern should be solely Assad, but the entirety of the Syria Government and Military.



Wars have been started over much less and using military force in a country where another exterior nation has military personnel, especially Russia will cause even higher tension.

Russia doesn't have to declare a war, all that has to happen is Russian troops firing on NATO troops or NATO forces killing Russian troops.

Tensions between the Russian Federation/China and US are high all over, not just in regards to Syria.

Russia has launched Topol-M ICBM's over Syria, towards Israel. A message to both NATO and Israel to not interfere in Syria.

China also has many assets in Syria, many Russian and Chinese civilians died in Libya in NATO bombing runs and we're seeing the outcome of that action in current events.

 

We can't resolve the issue with any sort of finality. First it was just, Iraq, then Afghanistan, then Pakistan, then Libya...then what? Syria, Yemen, Iran, Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Lebanon, UAE, Cyprus, Qatar, Bahrain, Oman...ect, ect, ect...

As far as involving the world...we are the lions share of NATO. The two other massive countries with a huge military are both China and Russia, the largest military in Europe and second largest in NATO is the Turkish Military and they border Syria.

Last week Syria shot down a Turkish F-4 Phantom that had lost course and malfunctioning avionics, they didn't stop to ask questions, they just blew it out of the sky.



That's a common misconception among Westerners, dictators and warlords aren't a sole individual.

Syria has been under the rule of the Assad family since the 1970's, it's been a close ally of Russia and the former Soviet Union.

His regime is very organized and very loyal to him and the ideology. Your concern should be solely Assad, but the entirety of the Syria Government and Military.



Wars have been started over much less and using military force in a country where another exterior nation has military personnel, especially Russia will cause even higher tension.

Russia doesn't have to declare a war, all that has to happen is Russian troops firing on NATO troops or NATO forces killing Russian troops.

Tensions between the Russian Federation/China and US are high all over, not just in regards to Syria.

Russia has launched Topol-M ICBM's over Syria, towards Israel. A message to both NATO and Israel to not interfere in Syria.

China also has many assets in Syria, many Russian and Chinese civilians died in Libya in NATO bombing runs and we're seeing the outcome of that action in current events.

My concern shouldn't be only assad? He isn't my conern at all. You are the one that has gone on and on about him and his regime for your last two responses to me. I have no doubt that the Syrian government could be taken down inside of 2 weeks if we chose to do that. My only concern is efficient use of our resources and military. The only two choices are stop playing nice or pull out entirely.

I could care less about Russia and China and their Syrian assets. If they condone what is going on in Syria, then that is their problem.