Syria death toll doubles in past year; how is this not a crisis?

[Gumboy]

I personally do not have any love for either sides of this conflict. Assad has done terrible things, the rebels have done terrible things, and if the rebels win, they look like they would be just as bad if not worse)

so the death toll is up to 191,000 people. Many, many of them civilians.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/23/wo...to-191000.html

The saddest part is? The number should be even higher: " It did not include nearly 52,000 deaths that were recorded but lacked sufficient detail."

" Most of the documented deaths did not specify the age of the victims, but where that information was available, the report identified 8,803 people under the age of 18, including 2,165 children under 10."


This is something we will look back on and be ashamed that we allowed it to happen. While the news talks about Iraq/Isis/Israel/Gaza in the majority of its foreign time, and russia/ukraine/Ebola in the rest, Syria, something that has had many more casualities, including civilians is on the backburner.


Is it because the leaders of other countries/UN/EU/whatever have no ideas for solutions? As I have already said, both sides seem bad to me right now (And I don't mean the average people of Syria here; just the people causing the fighting, on both sides) so even if something were done, which side do you support?

I've heard a lot of people saying if the West had gone in to aid more early it would not have let radicals take over the rebels, but I find that hard to fully believe, seeing the numbers and money ISIS has.

[c000]

[apepi]

What do you think we should do?

I doubt unless the US does something nothing will be truly done.

[Gumboy]

*SNIP BIGIMG

Lol, yeah I've heard that before; but honestly I think extremists would have at least attempted to take over the rebel side anyway. Look at Egypt (Though they are doing a pretty decent job of fighting extremism)

[apepi]

I doubt unless Saudi Arabia or Iran gets invaded nothing will get done. Saudi Arabia is pretty mush a true US ally(we get our oil from there). If they attack Saudi Arabia us will most likely put boots on the ground. If Iran gets attacked, sinc eit is a NATO country Nato will most likely come in.

[Tierbook]

I doubt unless Saudi Arabia or Iran gets invaded nothing will get done. Saudi Arabia is pretty mush a true US ally(we get our oil from there). If they attack Saudi Arabia us will most likely put boots on the ground. If Iran gets attacked, sinc eit is a NATO country Nato will most likely come in.

da hell? Iran? You mean Turkey?

[Gumboy]

Iran is not a Nato country? :P

- - - Updated - - -

da hell? Iran? You mean Turkey?

Yeah pretty sure he means turkey.

[PACOX]

The US will not go isolationist again but we will play with the idea. Even if the Syrian war ended tonight the aftershocks would a few years

[apepi]

Iran is not a Nato country? :P

- - - Updated - - -



Yeah pretty sure he means turkey.

I am sorry, I meant United Nations, not Nato.


But yeah if they hit Turkey we will also most likely help. Hell, even if they don't even step into Turkey the Kurds might ask for Turkey's help(Turkey does have some Kurds in it). Kind of like Russia is claiming with Ukraine...but with this it would truly be true. Though I would want to point out that the Kurds are a minority in Turkey so Turkey might not want a Kurdish state because it could in turn hurt them. Its complicated :}.

[Deleted]

Why is it the responsiblility of Western and other Foreign Nations to keep order in Syria? It is not really our concern.
We are already taking more refugee's then some of the puplic like. I am fine with sending Humanitarian Aid to Civilians. But anything else like funding Rebels, Assad is just a waste of resources in my opinion.

Getting involved in Syria will just be another Quagmire no matter, who is funding what side. It will lead to nothing good emerging and let us be honest, who ever wins will hardly be better, then the other side.

[apepi]

Why is it the responsiblility of Western and other Foreign Nations to keep order in Syria? It is not really our concern.
We are already taking more refugee's then some of the puplic like. I am fine with sending Humanitarian Aid to Civilians. But anything else like funding Rebels, Assad is just a waste of resources in my opinion.

Getting involved in Syria will just be another Quagmire no matter, who is funding what side. It will lead to nothing good emerging and let us be honest, who ever wins will hardly be better, then the other side.

Hence why we have pretty much ignored it, but if they do attack another country that is actually notable worth we will help them.

[Deleted]

Sorry, the US has a strict policy of one freedom campaign every 10 years and the last one ended just a while ago. Those guys will have to wait and hope it's their turn next...that's if they're still alive by then. Unless ofcourse the US will have to break their own policy and move against ISIS because shit is about to hit the fan, in which case...

[Noomz]

I personally do not have any love for either sides of this conflict. Assad has done terrible things, the rebels have done terrible things, and if the rebels win, they look like they would be just as bad if not worse)

so the death toll is up to 191,000 people. Many, many of them civilians.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/23/wo...to-191000.html

The saddest part is? The number should be even higher: " It did not include nearly 52,000 deaths that were recorded but lacked sufficient detail."

" Most of the documented deaths did not specify the age of the victims, but where that information was available, the report identified 8,803 people under the age of 18, including 2,165 children under 10."


This is something we will look back on and be ashamed that we allowed it to happen. While the news talks about Iraq/Isis/Israel/Gaza in the majority of its foreign time, and russia/ukraine/Ebola in the rest, Syria, something that has had many more casualities, including civilians is on the backburner.


Is it because the leaders of other countries/UN/EU/whatever have no ideas for solutions? As I have already said, both sides seem bad to me right now (And I don't mean the average people of Syria here; just the people causing the fighting, on both sides) so even if something were done, which side do you support?

I've heard a lot of people saying if the West had gone in to aid more early it would not have let radicals take over the rebels, but I find that hard to fully believe, seeing the numbers and money ISIS has.

And what, is anyone supposed to do about it? If anyone else gets involved, they get shit for it for forever and ever. If we don't, we'll get shit for it for forever and ever.
How many wars could we ever get involved in, any of us? How much policing do we need to do for the world to be happy? I think the world has expressed, repeatedly, that policing isn't what it wants. So we don't, and now we get shit for it.
Simply sticking our proverbial dicks into this mess won't solve ANYTHING, we'll just become another target, for a region that's already completely screwed. By now, it'd be better for government forces to win, to avoid genocide of minorities that will happen the instant that, if they do, the government loses.

So who are we to make that choice? Because if we get involved and tip the scales, WE will be held responsible for what happens afterwards and NO-ONE wants that.

- - - Updated - - -

Sorry, the US has a strict policy of one freedom campaign every 10 years and the last one ended just a while ago. Those guys will have to wait and hope it's their turn next...that's if they're still alive by then. Unless ofcourse the US will have to break their own policy and move against ISIS because shit is about to hit the fan, in which case...

Considering the money and lives spent on the previous ones and how laughably inconsequential the end results were, I don't blame them for not wanting that again.

[Deleted]

Besides, why the fuck is the US the world police?! How come every time shit happens somewhere in the world the US are called to fix it and then take the flak for fixing it as well. Where is the fucking UN, isn't that their job?!

Man, if I was president of the US I'd just say "fuck it, unless it's a threat to America, fuck it!"

[Noomz]

I doubt unless Saudi Arabia or Iran gets invaded nothing will get done. Saudi Arabia is pretty mush a true US ally(we get our oil from there). If they attack Saudi Arabia us will most likely put boots on the ground. If Iran gets attacked, sinc eit is a NATO country Nato will most likely come in.

Saudi Arabia is only loyal to itself. The only alliances they have are temporary and convenient. They do a lot of double-dealing. Even Iran knows that.

Iran already, covertly, support the Syrian government with troops, because Iran knows exactly what will happen if that government falls. It's a proxy war and Iran is involved to secure it's own safety. If Syria falls, they are next.

- - - Updated - - -

Besides, why the fuck is the US the world police?! How come every time shit happens somewhere in the world the US are called to fix it and then take the flak for fixing it as well. Where is the fucking UN, isn't that their job?!

Man, if I was president of the US I'd just say "fuck it, unless it's a threat to America, fuck it!"

Because the US are the only ones with the economical and military capacity to do so. The US is even the major backbone of the UN and NATO, which wouldn't even exist without American resources.
The UN? Act? Hahaha! No, no they never do. NEVER. I'm not even sarcastic. I don't trust the UN to ever be usefull. Last time they had a chance to act in former Jugoslavia, they stood by as genocide was commited. They had troops right there, that were ordered not to defend the innocent civilians as their butchers came to take them away. THAT, is the UN.

The issues with Syria will only be a threat if the government falls. But you can't support the government, because that'd look bad.

[Deleted]

Because the US are the only ones with the economical and military capacity to do so. The US is even the major backbone of the UN and NATO, which wouldn't even exist without American resources.
The UN? Act? Hahaha! No, no they never do. NEVER. I'm not even sarcastic. I don't trust the UN to ever be usefull. Last time they had a chance to act in former Jugoslavia, they stood by as genocide was commited. They had troops right there, that were ordered not to defend the innocent civilians as their butchers came to take them away. THAT, is the UN.

The issues with Syria will only be a threat if the government falls. But you can't support the government, because that'd look bad.

Well I'm sorry but who has decided that the USA is the world's Batman?! Wars cost lives as well as money. Why should the US throw lives at situations in other parts of the world that don't concern them?! If the UN, whose actual purpose is exactly that, doesn't give a shit, then that's how the world rolls.

Also, as soon as the USA does something, it starts getting called out as "imperialist", becomes a target for terrorists, and other shit. So why even bother?!

[apepi]

Saudi Arabia is only loyal to itself. The only alliances they have are temporary and convenient. They do a lot of double-dealing. Even Iran knows that.

Iran already, covertly, support the Syrian government with troops, because Iran knows exactly what will happen if that government falls. It's a proxy war and Iran is involved to secure it's own safety. If Syria falls, they are next.

Yes, but it does not mean US would not come to their aid to 'protect' their agreement.

Of course, but Iran actually has a good army, maybe the best in the middle east. When you compare them to Saudi Arabia, it makes Iran's ,military look very good, even though the US has given Saudi Arabia many weapons and such.

I believe Iran might even be able to match and counter Isis if that ends up happening.

Well I'm sorry but who has decided that the USA is the world's Batman?! Wars cost lives as well as money. Why should the US throw lives at situations in other parts of the world that don't concern them?! If the UN, whose actual purpose is exactly that, doesn't give a shit, then that's how the world rolls.

Also, as soon as the USA does something, it starts getting called out as "imperialist", becomes a target for terrorists, and other shit. So why even bother?!

"It is a dirty job but someones gotta do it."

[Paranoid Android]

I'm sorry but I am just tired of making every conflict, every hot zone something we (U.S) has to come to rescue. Sad most are Neo Cons who spout this crap and then turn around and bitch about how much our government spends. Also the fact we lose lives, which are generally the poor (maybe a plus for Republicans, I guess) and make more enemies than friends. You really think if we "liberated" Syria they will be our best buds ever?

Along with Syria, Isis, Russia and Israel it seems its always the U.S. problem. I live in the U.S. and yes probably media bias but it never seems to be Europe's or other Arab countries problems.

[Theinquisition]

Let them beat each other to death, there are no "good guys" in that conflict.

[Sky High]

it's been a crisis for years now. it's reached the point of utter chaos and the only thing that will end it will be if one falls. and even after that depending on who comes out on top could only be the beginning of the shit storm that's been going on in Syria/Iraq.