Why the contraditions in dealing with Syria?

[picoico]

Re: Why the contraditions in dealing with Syria?

@teggy

The contradiction that I see which I find disturbing is that some honorable people are cheering for U.S. to take part in, and actively get involved in Syria. Whereas, in all other places where U.S. is involved for the same reasons, it is condemned right, left and center.

Well, I see people pointing at US hypocrisy for not getting involved, but even though that’s a self defeating argument, it’s not quite hoping that they want the US to get involved. If we look at the case of Libya, I think the clerical establishment was near unanimous that the issue should have been resolved internally, and not through a foreign bombing campaign. The same opinion is emerging on Syria, even though this time it’s sectarian violence.

What Assad is doing is barbaric, what the rebels are doing is equally heinous.

With all due respect, I think we can fault the rebels for their own crimes on their own merit. Nothing the rebels have done is equal to slaughtering 1000 civilians in a day. We can pretend like it’s still ambiguous as to who launched the nerve gas attack, but that’s just being a willing idiot. The Syrians have a stock pile. The Syrians have conducted mass slaughter in the past. It was a pro-rebel territory that was gassed. I mean let’s get a grip here…Assad is a monster. The rebels are in the right to want to cut this tumor out of their nation. This conflict has been raging for over 2 years now, with the atrocities being mostly on Assad. There’s nearly 2 million refugees. Guess what sect? So I do object to your use of “equal” there. It’s not equal. Far from it.

But what’s most treacherous is that no muslim nation has the will to formulate a plan, and use that military prowess they all possess to set up a Peace Force comprising of different muslim nations so no one nation gets singled out as being the “bad guy” for going into Syria.

This is depressing, to be sure. The sad fact is, no Muslim nation has the ability to project it’s military force a tad bit beyond it’s borders. I may be wrong, and will like to be proven so…but even the Iran and Iraq which waged on for a decade was fought within the border region. Largely in part because neither nation had the logistical capability to carry the fight further than that. But that point is actually secondary. The first thing to realize is that the primary duty of the armed forces of any nation in the region is to subdue it’s own population. When it comes to conventional fights, these nations need to rely on irregular forces. These are very weak and incapable armies. This is why the Syrian army needed Hezbollah to bail it out.

I do agree though, it’s the height of hypocrisy for one to expect America to take action on Syria when their actions elsewhere have been condemned…