Weekly Question: Should the West intervene to protect Syrian civilians from the Assad regime?
Please leave a comment below to let us know what you think.
March 29, 2011
View in: Mobile
View in: Mobile
Please leave a comment below to let us know what you think.
Is there a connection between the wave of protests in the Arab world and the upsurge in violence from Gaza?
Please leave a comment below to let us know what you think. ...
Frank Adam
10:24 am
Mar 30, 2011
The Arabs area violent and ungrateful bunch ever since Ibn Khaldun noted as much in his medieval history. They should be left to stew in their own bloody incompetences till they grow up by their own efforts – which will probably happpen when the oil era closes and with it their access to profligacy and non – think.
Well-loved. Agree or Disagree:
10 
2
E.S Lombard
12:50 pm
Apr 18, 2011
While we are already stretched too ambitiously and thanklessly, for the moment. I hope that we are engaged in assorted forms of subversion in these places until things become clearer. If we can manage to support emerging trends, we may prove more effective in the long run. We make it difficult for ourselves and others when we are expected to win people’s battles for them. They have to extend themselves even more. In the end, usually we will go either unthanked or blamed for anything we do.
I understand that cultural anthropologists are being consulted by military planners these days. With the Palestinians, historically there was endless clan and tribal warfare, but from the first moments of the Zionist enterprise in 1902, the Arab leadership was able to turn the tribes on the Jews. Were Israel to disappear tomorrow, the tribal feuding and warfare would probably be resumed.
Agree or Disagree:
0 
0
Rainrider
10:53 am
Mar 30, 2011
Just a thought here. Does it seem that when Obummer, steeps up to help any one, they seem to more on the side of the people we are fighting, or is that just me?
Well-loved. Agree or Disagree:
10 
0
ralph
11:50 am
Mar 30, 2011
IF TE WESTERN WOULD INTERVENE IN SYRIA THEN WHY NOT IN YEMEN,BAHRAIN SAUDI ARABIA , IRAN ,ETC? MEMBERS OF THE NORVEGIAN LEFT HAVE RAISED THE QUESTION OF A MILITARY INTERVENTION AGAINST ISRAEL IN CASE OF A NEW
INVASION INTO THE GAZA STRIP.
IF THE UN SECURITY COUNCIL WOULD VOTE IN FAVOUR OF A MILITARY ACTION AGAINST ISRAEL (IN CASE OF NO US VETO) THE PROBABILITY THAT IT WOULD BE ATTACKED BY AN ARABO-MUSLIM MILITARY COALITION (AND OTHER COUNTRIES) IS MUCH GREATER THAN A NEW MILITARY INTERVENTION ELSEWHERE.
Agree or Disagree:
4 
1
E.S Lombard
1:11 pm
Apr 18, 2011
Many think that Israel made a big mistake in bowing to pressure by giving up Gaza. It may well be forced to reoccupy that area if they can’t maintain a truce. Half of Israel’s population, army and police are from families long bred in Arab countries and must certainly have some conviction that this is “payback time” for all the humiliations and abuse they had to endure historically in Arab countries. That would be my own impulse.
If several Arab countries are now seeing revolt from their citizens, consider the even greater repression the Jews suffered in the Arab world and didn’t have the luxury of revolting. We may witness what may be “Nazi-like” Israeli bullying, but unless one knows the interpersonal dynamics of cultures, it is better to become informed or to suspend judgment altogether. If you’re occupying .06% of the land and your enemies 99.04%and if they are so many hundreds of millions, you use tactics and behaviors that to those remote from the scene cannot begin to understand much less sympathize with.
Agree or Disagree:
0 
0
Steve Mann
12:38 pm
Mar 30, 2011
They would be wasting their time and money- There is not a Muslim state in the world and there are 57 of them where anything like a democratic society will take place- Unlike other countries with a religious base, who live by secular government, they never will. The chance of them disassociating themselves from a Theocratic system is near to zero. Sharia will always appear. And we all know how that dictates.
Well-loved. Agree or Disagree:
7 
0
Gary Katz
8:53 pm
Mar 30, 2011
Just where exactly do we stop? There must be dozens of countries where the government is abusing its citizens, through out and out military action, “disappearances,” political repression, torture and imprisonment for such offenses as “defaming the government” or “defaming Islam.” The U.S. couldn’t do it all, even if we reinstated the draft and doubled the size of our armed forces.
Agree or Disagree:
3 
2
Amy
12:12 pm
Mar 31, 2011
The United States should stay out of the Middle East…for centuries they have had a culture all their own. The oil we may need from that part of the world should be no reason for our intervention into their affairs. They need to sell their oil more than we need to purchase it, and it is time that we stop dragging out the drilling of our own supply…creating a better economy at home. The money we spend sending our military around the world can be put to use here at home to bring back our industires and to stop the outsourcing of jobs.. We are able to produce most of what we import that would bring back employment and the economy.
The Middle East lived in absolute harmony until the 6th century when Turkey and the western world began to interfere. Each nation has its own culture, just as we have ours– and it is time to put a stop to this nonsense of making a “one world”…..
Agree or Disagree:
1 
1
Steve Mann
2:26 pm
Mar 31, 2011
The Middle East lived in absolute harmony until the 6th century”"
Do you mean until Mohammed turned up!
Well-loved. Agree or Disagree:
5 
0
E.S Lombard
7:29 am
Apr 13, 2011
If memory serves, there were plenty of empire builders before the Moslems ran amok in the seventh century. The most intrusive were the Persians, the Macedonians under Alexander, and of course, the Romans. There were less ambitious folks too like the Lombards, Carthaginians, etc. History suggests that Mohamet was not a highly educated man but a warrior and his limitations as expressed in his writings have become the limitations of his descendants. Some of his Jewish neighbors, it is reported, mocked his pretensions at scholarship and refused to follow him which only earned them his wrath and that of all his followers since then. Martin Luther had the same kind of experience with the Jews whom he courted until they clearly rejected him whereupon he turned against them with rage not unlike that of Mohamet. Spurned suitors can be very dangerous. Is it possible that that is what we’ve been experiencing in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc as we try to win hearts?
Agree or Disagree:
0 
0
Steve Mann
4:47 pm
Apr 18, 2011
But Have I not read that Mohammed was uneducated and could not read or write-
Did he not have others write the verses that were told to him by the visiting angel in the cave-
And did he not raise an army to subjugate all before him-
Agree or Disagree:
0 
0
Tami
2:49 pm
Mar 31, 2011
The only country that should intervene is Saudi Arabia ! They have the most to lose. Their oil momopoly and their heads. Yet they are the one who “imported” Wahaabism and use it as an effective tool to subjegate the Arab masses.
We in the West have no clue who the real players are. Therefore lets stay out of it.
Agree or Disagree:
4 
1
Dr. Emanuel Sphardi Lombard
8:01 pm
Mar 31, 2011
The police are trained not to intervene in marital disputes. Usually, when they do, both aggrieved parties end up attacking the police. The best you can do is to offer counseling to both parties. The UN is supposed to perform that service.
We may resent the rising costs of gasoline, but if you add the total costs of warfare, wrecked lives, and the costs of trying to repair those lives to the ultimate cost of that gallon, it’s a no brainer! Is the cost $25? $30 a gallon bottom line?
Agree or Disagree:
1 
0
Michael Dar
11:50 am
Apr 02, 2011
The west should not intervene in intern Arab feuds..only in cases where western interests (Arab blackmail -oil) and security ( Iran) are clearly at risk. They never bothered to intervene in Rwanda, Soudan, in Algeria or in Sri-Lanka for intance when hundreds of thousands of people were killed. Why than in Libya over a couple of hundreds of dissidents killed? Concern for killings and humain suffering is not the real reason, hypocrits! And the UN and sub-agencies are to busy condemning Israel for daring defend herself..Discusting..
Agree or Disagree:
3 
0
BILAL ( SYRIAN)
7:26 pm
Apr 02, 2011
first thing first watch this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fGsulhpqU8k
and this plz http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jFOPpjwbkHI
it’s media war against Syria , leave us alone
Agree or Disagree:
1 
0
Steve Mann
12:00 pm
Apr 06, 2011
Bilal- I agree completely the world should stay out of Syrian affairs-
Conversely with the exception of the Golan Heights discussion, Syria should stay out of Israeli affairs- such as arming Hezbollah- do you agree?
Agree or Disagree:
1 
0
Beverly Kurtin
6:55 pm
Apr 04, 2011
Hell no! If the Syrians wish to overthrow their dictator, let them rise up and do what the Egyptians did. Not ONE molecule of Western blood for Syria.
Agree or Disagree:
2 
0
E.S Lombard
12:36 am
Apr 05, 2011
We of the West make the naive mistake of thinking that because our values seem to work for us that therefore it is only enlightened and humane that we impose those advantages on folks of very different cultures and, in some cases, much older traditions. The most enlightened cultural anthropologists find it difficult to make useful recommendations as to how we might best proceed. Our world has become crowded and what other UN members do has become of increasing significance to us all. Something must be done, but the old, forceful ways are becoming prohibitively costly in material and human capital. We all have our solutions to propose. I’ll make mine elsewhere but observe here that two of our major world issues are jobs for the young and the even distribution of food. The world is failing to note the rising tide of restless, unemployed, educated youths. The recent riots in the Arab world are largely propelled by this looming time bomb that inevitably may affect us all. We’ve tempted this generation with now illusory material advantages. The Tunisian who immolated himself just weeks ago seemed to be the precursor of what’s to come….maybe even in the U.S. Do we have solutions?
Agree or Disagree:
2 
0
Graham R-B
8:41 am
Apr 12, 2011
Painful though it is to stand by and watch armed dictators destroy their populace, it would appear that only when this tragic process becomes savage enough will it engender an organized revolution powerful enough to successfully bring down the tyrant and his supporters.
The Poles and others won their freedom against the once mighty Soviet Union without outside assistance. Only when people are pressured hard enough will they find the strength within themselves to overcome.
We often ask too much of our military personnel. Those Americans who feel strongly enough to put their lives at risk and go to the aid of a foreign nation’s civilians should be allowed to do so but only in their private capacity, as in the Spanish Civil War.
Agree or Disagree:
0 
0
E.S Lombard
10:22 am
Apr 12, 2011
Of course, at the time of the Spanish Civil war, we brilliantly placed an embargo against the shipment of war materiel to Spain which gave all the advantage to Hitler who used Spain as a training ground for his air force and military strategies in preparation for WWII. We were so afraid that communism would make inroads in Spain that we were ready to sacrifice a generation of Spaniards to destruction and starvation and to let that monster, Francisco Franco rule for almost 40 years.
At least in the case of Syria, we have a chance, correctly handled, to break the Iran-Hizbullah axis that is sending in insurgents that kill our troops and is getting ready to threaten the entire area with atomic bombs. It strikes me that undermining Syria is even more important than what we are doing elsewhere.
Agree or Disagree:
0 
1
Graham R-B
9:54 pm
Apr 12, 2011
To: E.S.Lambert. Undermining Syria would be a prelude to an assured Iran-Hizbullah take-over.
Agree or Disagree:
0 
1
Steve Mann
11:30 pm
Apr 12, 2011
I am not to sure that is so- There are many in Syria, as there are in Iran- who are not Sharia type Jihadis- That have a secular view, especially among the younger generation- Western educated-
So even though I have a great mis-trust of believers in the Q`ran- There are those he see the advantage of a Western type democracy.
Agree or Disagree:
0 
0
E.S Lombard
7:05 am
Apr 13, 2011
I thought we’d all acknowledged that Syria is already a key player in the Hezbullah, Iran, Gaza axis. Then we have the peripheral trouble makers: North Korea, China, and Turkey. Deceit, duplicity and guile are essential features in each of those cultures, and we simply don’t know how to behave in that world. So far, I believe that John Bolt, our man in the UN, knows well how to confront them. I sense that they are afraid of his no nonsense, vigorously confronting style. He reminds me of Teddy Roosevelt without TR’s war loving aspect.
Agree or Disagree:
1 
0
E.S Lombard
7:47 am
Apr 13, 2011
Sorry! The name is John Bolton not Bolt. The Republicans seem to lack a presidential candidate that they are confident in for 2012. Perhaps he might be suitable.
Agree or Disagree:
3 
0
Graham R-B
9:09 am
Apr 14, 2011
While there are times when inaction is inexusable it sometimes beats falling prey to an enemy
which preys on its own people. We could intervene in Syria, topple Assad after wasting an unknown number of our own gallant military lives on a population too weak to sustain itself against new dictatorial forces, as so far it has shown in its fight against its minority Alawite ruler.
Our C-in-C, politically, is in dire need of a military victory, not another ‘bloody nose’ let alone more blood on his hands.
Agree or Disagree:
1 
0
ray
12:18 am
Apr 18, 2011
many great arguments. but as a citizen of that area i tell you this. helping the syrian citizens out agains that evil government is the right thing to do. you must keep in mind that syrian government is the head of the terrorist groups. taking that government out will have a more positive reaction and outcome. iran will become isolated, and unable to control its own soon to begin riots. people of the middle east have been looked upon as killers. you need to know that we are freedom fighters from anyone who decides to take our freedom away from us, including our own gvrmnts. the usa is not our enemy.
Agree or Disagree:
1 
1
Beverly Kurtin
10:16 pm
Apr 25, 2011
Not only NO, but HELL NO! Other countries in that part of the world have done without our help. It’s Arab v Arab and I say to hell with all of them. They won’t be grateful and our people will shed blood for NOTHING.
As soon as the Arabs get through getting new leadership their collective arrows will point towards the only Democratic Republic in that part of the world and we all know who that is (hint: they speak Hebrew).
The Arabs have a history of warfare over who stole whose goat a thousand years ago. It is in their DNA to fight each other if there is nobody else to fight. Let the Syrians be Syrians and do what the Egyptians did.
I do not hate Syrians; my cardiologist, the ONLY one I trust with my arteries, is a Syrian. He is a caring doctor who knows what he is doing and bends over backward to make certain that his patients are not in pain.
It is a shame what is happening to innocent people over there, but HOW MANY PLACES CAN WE BE WITHOUT LEAVING OUR OWN SECURITY TO CHANCE?
Agree or Disagree:
0 
0