The Syria Issue: Your Personal Stance Is Much Appreciated

Hello Folks,

I've been a member of this forum for quiet a while, I know I do not regularly frequent the website, but I give it my best to check out what's going on every once in a while.
I would like to get some insight on what you guys think of the whole Syria intervention thing. I'm a Syrian who lives in Damascus, the topic is problematic and has been stirring debate among Americans pro-military operations and those against in the last couple of days.
What do you know about the war in Syria? What do you think of the "Arab Spring" and all the chaos that' s been sweeping the entire middle east? What kind of approach do you think the United States should adopt regarding the recent events?
I would really like to know your opinions on the subject

Thanks
Best

And that applies to every one in this situation, both the people who are committing the violence on all sides and those standing by letting it happen.

When will they ever learn violence solves nothing, no matter who is doing it or why.

Dima, first it's good to see you posting. I was actually thinking about you last night and wondering how you were and hoping you were ok.


My opinion: I think that if the U.S. iss going to intervene militarily in Syria then it should have done so months ago. I have a bad feeling that anything the U.S. does now will explode into a shitstorm of epic proportions.

Overall I think "Arab Spring" was a good thing. The government needs to pay attention to its people. I feel that the big problem with "Arab Spring" was that the people wanted change but they couldn't agree on what form the change should take.

Dima, I wish you well whatever happens, but I avoid political discussions, here or elsewhere. If you wished, you might share how it looks from your side.

And that applies to every one in this situation, both the people who are committing the violence on all sides and those standing by letting it happen.

When will they ever learn violence solves nothing, no matter who is doing it or why.

Click to expand...

I am just curious... what should "those standing by letting it happen" do? I don't mean to be argumentative. I just don't see how you stop someone from using chemical weapons on women and children without using violence.

I agree 753C. There is no easy solution to that quandry.

753C said:

I am just curious... what should "those standing by letting it happen" do? I don't mean to be argumentative. I just don't see how you stop someone from using chemical weapons on women and children without using violence.

Click to expand...

This didn't just happen in a vacuum, it evolved out of a long series events, that I'm 100% certain had opportunities all along the way to do things differently, to enter into dialogues, to find an equitable solution. You will not convince me that there are absolutely no non-violent solutions to problems. There are places in the world where violence has been overcome through dialogue. (Timor-Leste is one that comes immediately to mind).

I will add that there is no regime, no matter how oppressive, that can rule without the support of the people, all it takes is for the people to be willing to stand up, or sit down and refuse to work because ALL nations require labour to operate. Passive resistance drove the British out of India.

Violence begets violence and the cycle of violence just escalates when people embark on violence to resolve their differences no-one wins.

I am by no means saying that all of this couldn't have been averted. I am just saying that that doesn't do anyone any good right now. And it is easy to recommend sitting down in front of a tank, when you are not going to be the one doing the sitting. Most people would prefer a fighting chance to placing themselves at the mercy of a despot. Can you imagine a non-violent opposition to Nazi Germany? How do you think it would have turned out?

Um you do know how many people the British massacred, imprisoned and tortured in India? It remains true that no government can rule against the will of the people - and yes I WOULD sit in front of the tank, but that is the problem, most people aren't, they would rather let the angry and violent take up their cause for them, than take action themselves.

If you want a simpler way of putting it - two wrongs don't make a right and if both sides are throwing bombs and killing people, both sides are wrong and no good will come of it. It never has in all the history of mankind, and never will. Societies started by violence, end violently. The overthrowers become the overthrown because by its very nature violence is exclusionary, it is province of a few, not the majority and when the few rule the many, sooner or later another few feel hard done by and it all starts again. Ad infinitum.

Now? Now is very much the time for talks and not more bombs. Even at this late hour - you don't throw oil on a fire and expect it to go out.

Ummm... when we felt hard done by the British we beat the smoke out of them and now they are our allies. Without nearly as much massacre, imprisonment, or torture.
Just sayin....

And well, at the risk of diving into deep waters, how is that right? America still suffers from the deep divisions caused by civil war between North and South and the wounds inflicted by the Vietnam War run deep, let alone the effects (on the whole world) by the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq etc.

As I said right at the get go - when will they ever learn?

Did the war in Iraq solve ANY of the problems? Did WW1 and 2 solve the problems that started it? Nope not in the least because the Serbs and Croats are still fighting the same damn stupid conflict they have been all along. Did the Vietnam war solve anything? The Korean War? Any war?

Name ONE conflict that a. solved ANY of the problems that the people involved thought it necessary to go to war over and b. didn't end with some or the other group feeling even more hatred and resentment than they did in the first place?

War is epically stupid and just creates more problems to be resolved when the people finally realise that the only resolution is found around the negotiating table. Why not just skip the bloodshed part?

Dima, come baaaaaaaaack!

Your right...Sorry to the OP.
Dima, my view is that there is not a good answer. Part of me thinks that we should just leave that area of the world alone and let it sort out it's own affairs. But... last night I saw the pictures of all of the dead women and children from the gas attacks on the news, and I can't help but think that if we have the power to stop this from happening again, we are almost obligated to do it.
And then you have to ask yourself, if we dispose of this government, will the next regime be any better?
It is a super complicated problem without an easy solution.

If the U.S. goes in and takes out the current regime, then what? That's the scary question.

And then you have to ask yourself, if we dispose of this government, will the next regime be any better?

Click to expand...

Egypt as a case in point!

It is a super complicated problem without an easy solution.

Click to expand...

Which would be why the sooner people get talking the better, because it is going to take a lot of talking to resolve.

sparkchaser said:

If the U.S. goes in and takes out the current regime, then what? That's the scary question.

Click to expand...

Egypt / Iraq / Afghanistan all over again.

The Arab Spring is another facet of the Islamic uprising that has been building in the Middle East for the last fifty years.

I have heard some news reports that say the opposition forces contain elements of Al-Qaeda. If that is true, are we going to arm and train these folks so they can attack us later?

Did the war in Iraq solve ANY of the problems? Did WW1 and 2 solve the problems that started it? Nope not in the least because the Serbs and Croats are still fighting the same damn stupid conflict they have been all along. Did the Vietnam war solve anything? The Korean War? Any war?

Click to expand...

Depends on what you mean by "Solve". Like I said, I can't imagine a non violent opposition bearing positive fruit in WWII. The Jewish community attempted to use politics, legal grounds and attempted to rally world sympathies to defend themselves and it didn't work out very well. Also by the same measuring stick, India certainly has it's issues despite having ultimately won it's freedom through non-violent resistance. I believe India now has nuclear weapons.
I do agree that it would be awesome if both sides could sit down at the table and work this out, the only problem is that both sides have to be looking for a non-violent solution.

Oh my!! thanks for all the great replies!!
Each and everyone of you guys seem to have legitimate arguments and it is absolutely understandable how difficult it must be to make a decision regarding such ultra-complex situation.

First, let me start with what pro-revolution Syrians think is best; the war within the country has reached an unimaginable level of madness, people here are on the edge of their seats in anticipation of the attack with a -we-want-to-get through-with-this-nightmare whatever the cost may be- attitude. The western intervention is viewed as a late but much needed and desired step on the way of moving towards a political solution. It seems like a swift calculated attack is the only option to weaken the regime and help bring its representatives to political discussions.
Not reacting punitively to the recent chemical weapons massacre would be a green light and an indicator for the government to commit more atrocities in the future. Syrians are known to be a proud people,I'm not exactly sure where this comes from. It is definitely painful for us to be calling for a foreign strike against our country,but we've witnessed all sorts of atrocities in the past two years that we believe the attack won't make things worse; as a matter of fact there's nothing left to be destroyed except for the regime's weapon depots. As for the growing fear of an Islamist takeover after the current regime is toppled, I would say the role of the Jihadi factions is exaggerated, I'm not trying to undermine their influence but I would say it is still within control.
Let me point out the fact that I don't believe in violence but we kind of got pulled into this by the government when the peaceful protests were met with force.

753C said:

Your right...Sorry to the OP.
Dima, my view is that there is not a good answer. Part of me thinks that we should just leave that area of the world alone and let it sort out it's own affairs. But... last night I saw the pictures of all of the dead women and children from the gas attacks on the news, and I can't help but think that if we have the power to stop this from happening again, we are almost obligated to do it.
And then you have to ask yourself, if we dispose of this government, will the next regime be any better?
It is a super complicated problem without an easy solution.

Click to expand...

I understand where you're coming from, and I deeply oppose wars and bloodshed. But whether we like it or not, the US is already involved in the conflict and the entire area in general, there are strategic interests that should be taken into consideration. Fearing what might come next does not justify inaction.