I think we should act, and we should act tomorrow

Submitted by Thomas (Austria), Sep 8, 2012 at 16:19

1. It is simply heartbreaking to see small children being shot by snipers. This is barbaric. And the people who live there they ask for our help like in Libya. They are sad and angry that we are not helping. If we start to help them now they would remember. Those people are very proud people and if we show them that we are helping just because of human rights reasons they won't forget this

2. I really don't believe that all rebels are islamists! Most of the people who are angry with Assad are the ones who have lost relatives and they want Assad away and they will take every help they will get, they don't care if the get the weapons from Saudi Arabia, France, Japan, Canada or USA or Kuweit. But as far as I think they would prefer the USA because they believed the promise George W. Bush made: democracy in the middle east and many people wants it

3. If we don't help we will lose influence on what will come later and what will happen in Syria and who will govern

4. It is a very big opportunity for the west to weaken Iran, which is interfering in Iraq and other places

5. History says simply "yes": In Egypt and Tunisia there was no western intervention: The islamists have won the elections. In Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya there was western intervention!!! In all three countries there are no (or very few) Islamists within the government!!!

6. In my opinion the most important would be a no-fly-zone. That would stop the killing from the air and help the rebels a lot. Only the USA and France can do this. The arab countries are far to weak for such a help. If there will come no no-fly-zone, the war against Assad will take much longer time and will put much more suffering to the common people, this would help the Islamists! But we don't know who will win. Neither Assad nor the Islamists are good for the west. I can't believe that the Islamists are worse than Assad and the axe with Iran. Assad and Iran are very destructive in Iraq

7. Why the Iraq wasn't so grateful is very easy to explain: The people there mistrusted the USA about the purpose why the intervention happened and what were their plans. They believed that the USA helped Saddam getting in Power and helping him against the Iran. There are lots of conspiracy theories within Iraq about the USA. It is not "ungratefulness", it is a big mistrust! Surely also since 1991 when George H.W. Bush told them to get rid of Saddam but didn't help them. They surely did not forget this.

8. The Islamists are trying to establish their world everywhere where they can. We have a war with them everywhere they go fighting and trying to win! Democracy is the answer and I believe that George W. Bush understood this and was acting like this. Iraq was a key state for the battlefield and it will be good if it will be possible if Iraq becomes a democracy where the Islamists stay out of the government or play a small role. In Iraq there had to stay out both the shiites and the sunny islamists.

9. In my opinion the big mistake of G.W. Bushs intervention in Iraq (if it was really a mistake) was not to think about....if you make intervention in Iraq and you try to build a democracy there you should also have intervention in Iran and Syria. So we are now in this historic situation with both neighbour countries...

10. I suppose the big challenge within the arab world will not be really sunni islamists versus shiite islamists, this is just a power struggle between some countries, maybe even just between Saudi Arabia and Iran, and even not sharia and democracy, but democracy and tribes and populations. Will it be possible to establish democracy in countries who are based on lots of different tribes with different power and people and different religions who are not elected. In Iraq the situation was even more simple than in Libya. The shiites are more than 50% of population, so they used the election for to get the power fast and here we are. The elections came too early, reconciliation would have been more important. Now there are parties like tribes. In Iraq there should be parties like in Europe, like social democrats, liberals, conservatives, greens, and so on, but not shiite parties and sunni parties and kurds and whatsoever. So this will be the big challenge of democracy: Will the arabs be able to forget that they are different people and tribes and vote for parties with different ideas for society under one constitution with human rights and equal rights for all people, religions and tribes? Maybe some day....

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".