American hypocrisy in Syria

Ok, it makes me sick the blatant hypocrisy in Syria. The US has made plenty recent vague statements about evidence of chemical weapons, and what our response should be if it is found the Syrian government has used them. We already support the opposition with weapons and supplies. It bothers me that we make plain that if the use of chem weaps by their government is found, that we will give more overt support to the opposition, however if the reverse is the case, there is no statement that we will give support to the government.
The obvious conclusion to draw is that, according to our policies, if the Syrian government uses chemical agents it is not ok, but if the opposition is using them, well, that's all right. I believe I understand the truth of the matter....we want the opposition to win, and so any means that approach that goal are legitimate, even if they are means we would criticize the government for. It makes me sick to be a taxpayer that supports such ideological policy. Just wanted to share my frustration with this two faced moral stance.

reply to post by pexx421


I completely agree the US is hypocritical.

How many "oppositions" are in there armed and fighting? How many alphabet agengies are there just to create chaos? Why should we send our young adults in there to die when no one really knows who's actually in there fighting eachother, or which side they're on?

Syria is soooo sad. I wish we could just get the citizens out who don't want to fight anyone at all.

Originally posted by pexx421
Ok, it makes me sick the blatant hypocrisy in Syria. The US has made plenty recent vague statements about evidence of chemical weapons, and what our response should be if it is found the Syrian government has used them. We already support the opposition with weapons and supplies. It bothers me that we make plain that if the use of chem weaps by their government is found, that we will give more overt support to the opposition, however if the reverse is the case, there is no statement that we will give support to the government.
The obvious conclusion to draw is that, according to our policies, if the Syrian government uses chemical agents it is not ok, but if the opposition is using them, well, that's all right. I believe I understand the truth of the matter....we want the opposition to win, and so any means that approach that goal are legitimate, even if they are means we would criticize the government for. It makes me sick to be a taxpayer that supports such ideological policy. Just wanted to share my frustration with this two faced moral stance.

I really think we see this as a Syrian problem, not ours. I'm not saying I condone the killing of innocents, but we are just leaving two long, drawn out wars behind. Should we really get involved in another one?

Where is the international community on this? Why doesn't someone else step up?

I would agree if this were a Syria issue that there is no reason for us to get involved in other nations civil wars at all. However, I do not believe this is the case. I dont believe that this is a Syrian issue any more than i believe that the vietnam war was a vietnam issue, or the venezuelan coup last decade was a venezuelan issue. I am quite convinced that this issue in Syria is but one more in the American standard of fomenting colored revolutions in nations with regimes we dislike, and that without initial, covert US involvement, there would likely not have been a revolution there at all....or in Libya.
In truth, it is hard to say what might have happened in these and other places without US funding al-qaeda and other insurgents to fight these governments that had policies that went in opposition of our agenda. The fact remains, the overthrow of these nations governments is right in line with US national goals, and this convenient fact removes all credibility from any actions we take, no matter how much we might cry that it is all in the name of democracy and the civilian populations. I think the Iraqi citizens might be hard pressed, at this point, to make a choice of what they would have preferred, an Iraq where they were left to deal with Saddam over time, through their own processes, or the iraq of today where 1.3 million of their friends and family are dead, and 4-5 million have been forced to flee the country thanks to US "Humanitarian" intervention. Libya certainly has a long hard road ahead, and has lost much of the ground it had gained under Qaddafi, as has Africa by losing him. I am certain that once we get truly involved, the same thing will be the fate for the Syrian people.

reply to post by pexx421


There is no doubt the US is backing the rebels. We have already given the rebels aid. I don't think they have ever come out pro Syrian government. That said they would indeed rather see this regime toppled by the rebels, as opposed to the US becoming involved. We will become involved if chemical weapon use can be verified 100%.