Start A Petition

Should The West Intervene In Syria?

World  (tags: world, middle-east, usa, politics, regime change, Syria, violence, humanrights, news, ethics, 'CIVILLIBERTIES!', 'HUMANRIGHTS!' )

- 2583 days ago -
Since protests began in March of last year, an estimated 5,400 people have been killed in clashes with the Syrian regime army.


We hate spam. We do not sell or share the email addresses you provide.


Susanne R (235)
Sunday January 22, 2012, 10:23 pm
According to the article, "They're just asking for the international community to force the regime to ensure safe passage for all U.N. humanitarian agencies," she tells NPR's Raz, "but not to have military troops or even no-fly zones."

I would support humanitarian intervention, but I don't think the U.S. should get involved in yet another war...

Jessica C (178)
Monday January 23, 2012, 4:56 am
I would support humanitarian intervention if that was all that happened...

However, if the West gets involved, the situation will end in regime change, a power vacuum, probably a government worse than the current one--and a wider deficit for the U.S. that wold make the one percent salivate for more devastation to what remains of the social safety net. In short, with our current leadership, only the wealthy and the tyrannical would emerge victorious while the people continue to suffer.

Darlene W (289)
Monday January 23, 2012, 8:12 am
Agree with your comment Susanne. Sad the people that have to suffer at the expense of those in power.

Past Member (0)
Monday January 23, 2012, 8:51 am

Past Member (0)
Monday January 23, 2012, 9:08 am
life has value beyond measure
Peace and Love

Christoffer B (18)
Monday January 23, 2012, 9:44 am
The biggest problem with an intervention by the west, is that we really can't afford one. Taking on Syria would require much more resources than the operation in Libya, and the money needed just isn't available. It is a shame that money have to come before human lives, but that is the reality of the situation.

Eva Ries (237)
Monday January 23, 2012, 10:09 am

The Libyan civilians asked for a certain level of assistance from the international community, and got specifically what they requested - no more, no less. If the Syrian civilians made the same request, it should be taken into consideration.

But a war or occupation, such as Iraq or Afghanistan? No.

Bob P (394)
Monday January 23, 2012, 10:10 am
thanks for sharing its time the west looked after thier own issues

Billie C (2)
Monday January 23, 2012, 10:36 am
keep us out of it. we need to get out of the whole region. let the muslims figure out their own problems for a change and leave us far away from them.

Alexander Werner (53)
Monday January 23, 2012, 10:54 am
West should stay as far away as possible, we do things only worse.

Maggie Obrien (43)
Monday January 23, 2012, 11:31 am

Stelizan L (258)
Monday January 23, 2012, 11:46 am
No, no more wars!!! BUT if the people of the nation REQUEST intervention, then do it but only as far as they want it and not as far as 'the West' wants to go!!!

Mary P (157)
Monday January 23, 2012, 1:44 pm
Thank you Cal.
The west needs to Butt out and put its own affairs in order. Why
Is the OWS not getting more exposure or equal exposure as the ME protests, in
Mainstream Media? Hide their own tyranny but target other countries citing
Humanitarian intervention but their real goal is OIL! Period!

Past Member (0)
Monday January 23, 2012, 1:45 pm
No, there should be no intervention. We see today that the armed "resistance" to the legitimate government of peace loving Syria has been lying. Both al Jazeera and Sky News have reported that the League monitors have flatly contradicted their claims that violence has increased, which led to the call for the monitors to leave.

Now why would the insurrectionists want a body which has REDUCED the violence to be off the scene? Perhaps because the Syrian government has been telling the truth all along, that the "unarmed demonstrators" are actually directed and provoked by armed Zionist Imperialist elements from outside.

Christoffer B (18)
Monday January 23, 2012, 2:24 pm
And here we have a loony who doesn't know sh*t, it must be easy to see the world in black and white, or as we call it, ignorance.

patrica and edw jones (190)
Monday January 23, 2012, 3:12 pm
The West should stay out of this conflict. Humanitarian aid - but nothing else. The Syrian people have to do the hard yards. Very recently we heard the Syrian army was going over to support the protesters, in droves.

Eddie O (95)
Monday January 23, 2012, 4:13 pm
I agree that humanitarian efforts and assistance would be okay, but not military invasion or war of ay sort. We need to get our own house in much better order and not make other parts of the planet even worse.

Ray M (0)
Monday January 23, 2012, 4:33 pm

David Menard (43)
Monday January 23, 2012, 4:36 pm
No the west should not intervene whenever we do the outcome is a disaster. Iraq and Afghanistan perfect examples

Past Member (0)
Monday January 23, 2012, 4:47 pm
Where did you hear that from Patricia? You never seem to say.

Past Member (0)
Monday January 23, 2012, 5:04 pm

What do you know? I assume it's what the corporate media have told you.

Cristina M (137)
Monday January 23, 2012, 5:31 pm
Should human rights be given priority according to the geographic limits? It's not about West and East, it's about human principles and what's happening in Syria is a crime against humanity. War is never the answer, but doing nothing centarinly is not helping these people who daily are bein massacred by their own government.

Stephen Brian (23)
Monday January 23, 2012, 5:37 pm
Hi John,

I don't know, but I suspect this is related to Patricia and Edward's comment:
Apparently there are enough deserters to take control of a city. I know the rebels were used as a source and you don't trust them, but it's pretty tough to fake having taken over a city. This story was also reported by the BBC and some other news-agencies.

Arabs don't need outside intervention to throw a rebellion, with or without cause. When was the last time leadership of an Arab state (except, I think, for Lebanon and arguably Tunisia) passed, with no bloodshed involved, from the hands of one living leader to another? Here's a hint: You'll be searching for quite a while.

What's going on in Syria looks like business as usual. No intervention is appropriate, at least not until we see whether Assad's promised reforms, which are supposed to be implemented next month, actually happen.

Lynn Squance (235)
Monday January 23, 2012, 8:36 pm
According to the article, some of the Syrian revolutionaries are saying 'No' to western intervention, not even 'no fly zones'. They want help with humanitarian aid and then be allowed to work things out themselves. I believe this is the only way to go because then you have a people committed to change that works for ost of Syrian society which is the way it should be. The Syrian people have a chance to grow their own leadership. It is truly sad that President Assad is so caught up in his tribe, the Alawite,that he cannot see what is happening to all Syrians.

Parvez Zuberi (7)
Monday January 23, 2012, 11:28 pm
WEST should not intervene in Syria affair and leave them alone because where ever you have gone its in a mess such as Libya, Afghanistan, Iraq so please do not go near them

Past Member (0)
Tuesday January 24, 2012, 1:38 am
Well Stephen, I had to think for about a nanosecond to be able to tell you that governments change regularly, without bloodshed in Morocco.

Tuesday January 24, 2012, 6:03 am
Noted thank you

Stephen Brian (23)
Thursday January 26, 2012, 12:57 am
Hi John,

I said "leadership", not "high elected office". I meant the top office of the country. Morrocco, like Jordan, is a constitutional monarchy with an elected government. Leadership does not get handed down from a living king to his successor. It passes upon his death. For anybody here who does not quite get the significance of this, consider events in recent years in Nepal, or decades ago in Jordan: The king retains the right to dissolve the government in Morocco too, as happened in 1965. He is not a figurehead. Yes, in Morocco elections run without violence. Nobody will run a violent coup to overthrow the Prime Minister because the king would not appreciate that, and would just dissolve parliament.

I understand your confusion, John: People refer to the dominant party of an elected parliament as "the government", and in a lot of Western countries, unelected heads of state are just figureheads so we think of heads of government as our leaders. However, in Morocco and a lot of other places, the head of state, who is not the same as the head of "government" is not a figurehead, They may not run the day-to-day affairs of the country, but they hold the real power and exercise it. They are the real leaders, not the elected heads of government.

Guess again.

Past Member (0)
Thursday January 26, 2012, 5:02 am
So what's the President of France? Has he "the real power".

In addition, the King of Morocco has recently relinquished many of his powers.

OmegaForPrez now (1)
Thursday January 26, 2012, 1:38 pm
no, leave the troops out, send seal team 6

Charles O (209)
Thursday January 26, 2012, 2:16 pm
What is "The West"?

It's a clique of banksters, billionaires, war-profiteers and corporate fascists. This group has the blood of tens of millions on its hands -- two world wars, the Cold Holy War, the slaughter in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Yoguslavia, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Indonesia (under Suharto), etc., and the perpetual reign of terror in Palestine. This gang calls itself "The West" to make it seem like it constitutes half of a planet eternally divided into "Us" and "Them", "Good Guys" and "Bad Guys".

This is the gang that fomented rebellion in Syria and the gang that now offers to end it, by turning Syria into another killing field like Iraq, where a million have died since 2003.

Let's say, as loudly as we can, "No thanks!"

And let us also reject one-sided "news" articles that exploit our compassion and turn human rights as a pretext for military aggression.

Stephen Brian (23)
Thursday January 26, 2012, 5:45 pm
Does the president of France have "the real power"? Let's see:
He is the titular head of the armed forces, though those forces traditionally follow the commands of the PM's cabinet. If push came to shove in France, I really don't know which way the army would jump.

He cannot legally dismiss the PM, though he can appoint one. Once a PM is in place, then, legally the president does not hold all the cards. He can also dissolve the National Assembly, but apparently not the upper house (senate). It seems, however, that the National Assembly holds the higher power. The question for France then comes down to whether the president could in reality, rather than just in law, keep dissolving the National Assembly until he gets the National Assembly, PM, and Cabinet that he wants. I really don't know about that, but I suspect he cannot as he is limited to one dissolution per year. Part of the difference between France and Morocco is that in Morocco, there is clear precedent from 1965 of the government being dismissed and the king ruling directly, not even bothering to put another elected government in office. I don't know the precedent in France.

I suspect then that the real power lies in the PM, except when the president is also the leader of the governing party. In that case, working through party-structure rather than his legal power as president, he can keep dismissing the PM through the party. (I read that such behaviour is accepted, though I haven't looked closely at precedent.) For purposes of a coup, however, the president holds the power because he could just dissolve the National Assembly following any attempt to take the PM's office by force.

I checked the relinquished powers. He promised to consult with the PM before dissolving the elected government. He retains total control of the army, however, so the king still holds all the real cards. As for the legality of any order he gives it (and the resulting chance of being disobeyed if he orders a forcible change of PM), guess who also controls the judiciary. He hasn't really relinquished all that much, so if push came to shove between him and the PM, the guy who controls the law and the army wins.

Stephen Brian (23)
Thursday January 26, 2012, 5:47 pm
Oops: He doesn't even have to consult with the PM. He has to consult with a constitutional court, of which he would appoint half. He does, however, apparently retain the right to ignore the court's recommendation so this would not actually limit his power.
Or, log in with your
Facebook account:
Please add your comment: (plain text only please. Allowable HTML: <a>)

Track Comments: Notify me with a personal message when other people comment on this story

Loading Noted By...Please Wait


butterfly credits on the news network

  • credits for vetting a newly submitted story
  • credits for vetting any other story
  • credits for leaving a comment
learn more

Most Active Today in World

Content and comments expressed here are the opinions of Care2 users and not necessarily that of or its affiliates.

New to Care2? Start Here.