General Question

noly's avatar

Should the US attack Syria?

Asked by noly (227 points ) June 5th, 2011

US and NATO attacked Lybia to protect civilians because they were targeted by their leaders. But we hear reports from Syria that civilians receive the same treatment. What is your thought on this issue?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

22 Answers

woodcutter's avatar

It should be up to the Europeans to do anything like that. It’s in their part of the globe. The US is not the only capable country to handle this. Europe has a dog in this race, so to speak, as it will be that area of the world who will end up with any possible war refugees.

noly's avatar

Even in Lybia,Europeans had to rely on US military power,what would europeans do without their US ally?

woodcutter's avatar

The US is the active super power but that fact tends to overshadow the fact that the Europeans have some really badass military assets to bear and they can do it with less cost if only for the reason it’s right there in their back 40.

Dr_Lawrence's avatar

I believe the USA is not the World Wide Police Department and that it should not be.

When the USA has eliminated racism, sexism and human suffering within their own country, they should then share with other countries the methods they used to accomplish these marvellous changes.

The USA has long misdirected excessive funds on the military at the expense of investment in their human resources – their population.

trickface's avatar

It’s Libya* not Lybia, and when that situation was happening, very similar things were happening in Yemen, Bahrain and Ivory Coast but not a word of US/EU involvement there.

Why?

There’s no oil in Yemen, Bahrain, Ivory Coast and Syria worth fighting for.

Buttonstc's avatar

No. We should stay out of foreign entanglements as much as possible and solve some of our own situations.

Ron Paul has the right idea.

MRSHINYSHOES's avatar

No, it should just mind its own business, something that the U.S. always has difficulty doing.

Hibernate's avatar

@woodcutter it’s close to Europe but I suggest you take a globe and look over it to see it’s in Africa. So that makes it a global issue since Africa isn’t concerned about mantaining peace there.

@Dr_Lawrence said the best thing here. Mind your own problems then “help” others. Us should help countries closer to them first.

SO basically the answer is NO

Lightlyseared's avatar

No. It’s a member of the so called axis of evil. It’s not in the US’s best intrests to stop its sworn enemies from killing themselves. Particulalry those sworn enemies with no oil or reserves of rare minerals.

trickface's avatar

@Hibernate Syria is in Western Asia (or what we call the Middle East), not Africa.

trickface's avatar

@woodcutter why should the EU police places like Syria? For human rights? I think we need to cut out the debt before we start sending charity to others in the form of armies.

Bagardbilla's avatar

Maybe the rest of the world needs to attack us, you know to protect us from our government! Reinstate our freedoms, protect us from politicians who’ve sold out to lobbiests, and protect us from Bankers who bail themselves out with our tax dollars during some of the most challanging economic times!
Nahaaaa, let’s just ignore the 800 lb gorilla in the room and go kick someone else’s ass!
Besides, why should we relearn to grow our economy by actually manufacturing something? Let’s just grow it through the Military Industrial Complex.
HOOOOORAH!
usa! Usa!! USA!!!

RandomMrAdam's avatar

I’m sure once USA has its hands on Libya Oil Production liberated Libyan people, then we will seek after Syrian oil production liberating Syrian people as well… We can always just say we have evidence of the production of WMDs in “Insert country of interest here” and the US people will go along with anything we say.

tedd's avatar

The US used up its political capital by helping with Libya.

All this talk of the US and Europe only caring because of the oil seems to be ignoring the fact Libya has like 2% of the planets oil reserves.

Europe was concerned for the massive influx of immigrants, particularly in France and Italy. The US and Britain got involved because they have never really been big fans of Ghadaffi. In fact until Britain and France brought it up to the UN, the US was content to not take action at all.

Even if the US wanted to help in Syria, our populace would never go for it, it would be political suicide for the president or anyone in congress to even suggest it at this point. Europe could very well go it without us, and if you think they don’t have the military might to do so without the US you’re a fool…. It would just be more complicated without our help.

rts486's avatar

Speaking as someone has had to do the attacking, I think we have enough on our plate as it is.

Qingu's avatar

Civilians in Syria have not received the same treatment as civilians in Libya.

The Syrian government has not used widespread military force against civilians, as Qaddafi did.

Also, the number of Syrian civilians killed is still not nearly as much as the number killed by Qaddafi.

The situations are similar but not identical.

And in any case, the US cannot attack every country that brutally represses its civilians. Nor should the US be expected to have a perfectly consistent across-the-board policy of attacking foreign countries. It would be much better to limit our attacks on pragmatism grounds rather than attack even more countries to ensure “consistency.”

mattbrowne's avatar

Once the Syrian revolutionaries ask the UN for help, yes. Like the Libyans did. And it should be a multinational effort.

trickface's avatar

@tedd I would think 2% of Earth’s oil sounds like a lot to US/EU, why that could hold off the impending economical collapse by a good 30–40 years if we got hold of Libya’s oil for cheap! Surely worth spending (first week of Pentagon spending) $600 million on, bargain!

As for not being a fan of Qaddafi, we are surely equally if not more suspicious and condemning of Kim Jung Il of North Korea, no? I just think the only consistency to be found in these ‘military aid’ situations is that the country being helped has valuable resources. I agree with @RandomMrAdam

woodcutter's avatar

@ Hibernate said: it’s close to Europe but I suggest you take a globe and look over it to see it’s in Africa. So that makes it a global issue since Africa isn’t concerned about maintaining peace there.
What does that even mean?

woodcutter's avatar

@trickface Like I already said, if a humanitarian disaster develops to the point where millions of people un- ass Syria, they won’t be swarming the US….they’ll all be living in all your back patios. Just think about that for a quick second :). Besides, it’s about time the Europeans knocked some of the dust of their gear and use it already. The US has done enough, that the rest of the world will no doubt realize benefits of those efforts eventually. We killed Bin-laden. Anything big the Europeans done lately?

King_Pariah's avatar

Stupid Woodrow Wilson, ending isolation with getting tangled up in WWI

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.

This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.

Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther