the U.N. (UNITED NATIONS) is impotent re: SYRIA

[tom d. friedman]

the united nations is an impotent peace keeping organization. look at all the b.s. & strife in the middle east as an entity, no country steps up to the plate because they won't risk their necks in the name of peace. why is it always us?? (u.s. ) even the brits, 1 of our staunchest allies declined, however the french have stepped up to the plate!! go figure!! but no other country. we always incur the expense & the lives when we have been at war on 2 fronts for world peace 10 years now. where was everyone else?? granted, i believe we should not intervene in syria AS WE ALWAYS WIND UP BACKING THE WRONG SIDE IN THE LONG RUN, OR GET STABBED IN THE BACK IN THE LONG RUN. osama bin laden was once on our team, we backed him w/ the bucks & bullets, then look what happened. i don't think i have to elaborate on that!! if we attack syria we are cutting our own throats because they all hate us regardless & have no appreciation for our efforts of world peace. if we do attack we will be open to an entire new wave of terrorism & shove ISRAEL in the whole mess because everybody in the middle east hates them. please note: this is not a political rant, but an international concern, i hope any replies don't go overboard & gets this new important thread locked. : smile before you reply.

[bdk]

While I feel sad for the peaceful citizens of Syria, I just don't think it is our business.

Getting involved to send a message that chemical weapons are wrong, only drags us in, and gets every yayhoo with a chip on their shoulder another excuse for domestic terrorism. These people are using gas on their own people. Is that not punishment enough for them? Not only that, but it seems unclear at this moment who exactly is resposible. Jump the gun and we're only furthering the cause of evil.

Primarily the western world eschews the use of poison gas. I don't see that those other countries ever agreed to that. It is a western standard, from the Geneva Protocol of 1925. Another point is that Syria is ostensibly in the midst of a civil war. Is the signature of that protocol still valid?

So what is next? UN peacekeepers doing weapons inspections? Another ruse for the UN to get the US to do their bidding. US (tax) money and US risk while the rest of the UN member nations take the easy way out.

[davidwomacks]

This is how I feel about Syria. Assad is the leader we should stand behind him not the rebels some of whom are backed by terrorist groups ie choose the lesser evil. Even if Assad was deposed the civil war would keep going but now between small groups and intensify. Assad having a large army would be able to consolidate power better than some small rebel group at wars end. Plus if we helpped him he'd owe us big time and we'd have a true ally in the mid east. I'm not a fan of Assad but sometimes you have to choose the group whose friends haven't attacked you.

[miles47]

I am come a cross to your site and found it according to my need and demand.

[Happydays]

I am of the opinion that the UN is as much good as the old League of Nations, I other words, totally useless.
Yes the US is usually takes the lead role. But if you see yourself as the worlds policeman, as the US does, then you must expect to take on the responsibility that goes with it.
The UN's efforts in Syria are lamentable, but when you have the likes of Russian and China to contend with then it becomes very difficult.
Syria has to be allowed to sort out its own problems, we did it in England and we call it the civil war, the difference being we did it 500years ago.
Syria, and an awful lot of other countries are that far behind.