It took two years of conflict in Syria for the refugee figure to reach one million, but only six more months to reach two million, Mr. Guterres noted. In addition, at least 4.5 million people have been driven from their homes inside Syria by the destruction and violence, meaning that close to one-third of the country’s population has been displaced by the civil war, and about half the population has needed humanitarian aid, Mr. Guterres said, putting Syria’s crisis at a level unseen in recent decades.
About 40,000 Syrians fled to Iraq in the last two weeks of August, and 13,000 arrived in Lebanon in the past week. Over all, close to 5,000 Syrians are leaving every day.
Imagine if this number of people flowed into the United States, unauthorized. What would we do with the people? Many Americans complain about illegal immigration. Hmmm…what’s the difference?
Some of the receiving countries simply cannot take any more people. They are in crisis. International aid has fallen very short.
By the end of August, Lebanon had more than 716,000 Syrians who were registered as refugees with the United Nations and many more who were unregistered, he said, meaning that perhaps one of every four people in the country is a Syrian. About 515,000 Syrians were on the United Nations register in Jordan, 460,000 in Turkey, 168,000 in Iraq and 110,000 in Egypt, with many more likely to be unregistered.
“These countries need massive support from the international community to be able to cope with the challenge,” Mr. Guterres said, emphasizing the acute strain the refugee influx has placed on their economies and social resources. “If that support does not materialize, the risks of instability in the Middle East will dramatically increase.”
Is this the price of doing nothing? Mr. Guterres, is the United Nations high commissioner for refugees. We keep hearing that air strikes will destabilize the region. The Civil War is destabilizing the region. The refugees are destabilizing the area. That ship has already sailed. Winter is coming and there are families living in tents with no heat, little food, and inadequate clothing. What will winter do to these people? Granted, it doesn’t impact the United States directly. Can we say the same thing about the Holocaust? Can we ignore the killing, the gassing, the starvation? Where are the countries of the world?
The international response so far has fallen far short of what is needed, Mr. Guterres warned. Turkey has received financial assistance equivalent to less than 10 percent of what it has spent to support the refugees, he said. Financial backing for Jordan and Lebanon was “totally inadequate,” he added.
The United Nations refugee agency says it has received $548 million, or less than half the $1.1 billion it had sought, to pay for relief for Syrian refugees in 2013. Most came from traditional Western donors, led by the United States, which contributed $228 million, or 40 percent of what the agency has received. European countries, Japan, Canada and Australia have together accounted for about 33 percent. Kuwait has contributed $112 million, or about 20 percent.
By contrast, Russia, the Syrian government’s main ally, has given $10 million. China, which has helped Russia block any authorization of military action against Syria in the United Nations Security Council, has given $1 million.
So those who have done the least to end the hostilities have also done the least to contribute to humanitarian aid. How very typical. China and Russia. Two real champions.
Yes, we Americans are tired of war. So are the Brits. Many European countries have their own financial problems. I bet none of us are as tired of war as some poor Syrian family who has left home with nothing but the clothes on their backs and their little children. That Syrian family has to look forward to a tent city with inadequate food, clothing, shelter and bathroom facilities.
Are there even Syrian relief funds that the general public can give to go to the countries taking in refugees? Many of us have read the horrors of the Holocaust and have shaken our heads about those who could help but didn’t. In fact, we have condemned them. These people need help.
I would have no problem contributing towards a cruise missile or two heading Assad’s way also. If a few Al Qaeda get a little action from that missile, so much the better. Wait, I am a taxpayer. I already have contributed.
Shame on the Brits, shame on France, shame on Germany and shame on the liberals who are weenie-whining about war.
I have just one phrase for the Brits, France and German: WWII
You never pay off some debts, folks.
Syria needs humanitarian aid, not more bombs and missiles
At what point would you feel we had to intervene with force? No one wants to touch this question with a ten foot pole.
Who do we send humanitarian aid to?
I am all for humanitarian aid.
Although lobbing a few cruise missiles Assad’s way might make us feel better, it will simply draw us into a conflict we won’t be able to get out of. And I don’t think it will change his behavior. Finally, the rebels include some bad actors with whom we should not be friending. Best to stay out of it.
@Starryflights
I didn’t know that pigs could fly. I agree with Starry.
Heh….just had a thought….if BOTH Starry and I are in agreement…..somebody had better rethink the plans.
Which of you is in the most shock?
War is like a multi-headed Hydra in Greek mythology. Although it is a vicious beast that can terrorize an enemy, it is very dangerous to anyone that comes in close contact. Like a hydra, it seems to have mythical powers of rejuvenation just when it appears dead. Once started, it takes a Herculean effort to finish.
So if the beast of war is to be unleashed, it should be for well-defined objectives to advance vital interests agreed upon by a large majority. This is not the case here.
Humanitarian aid would more helpful and less risky.
Tell me, did you support the War in Iraq?
This is not a war. It is a strike. This isn’t a war looking for a justification.
As for humanitarian aid, who would we give it to and under what conditions? How do we ensure the money/goods get to their intended source? What about refugees destabilizing the area?
Could it be that both are necessary?
What would have to happen to get your support?
Obama is right and finally shows he will stand up for our interests. Let the bombs fly. He should have started bombing already then dared Congress to tell him no.
No troops though, at least not yet. If Syria fights back and shoots down a plane or attacks Israel, that’s a different story.
Since everybody seems to think I’m sarcastic when I’m not. I am not joking.
@Moon-howler
Just curious, did you support the war in Iraq?
I am glad that Obama is seeking congressional authorization.
Tim Kane voted for the resolution.
@Moon-howler
“This is not a war. It is a strike.”
It is an act of war. If someone did this to us….we would consider that we are at war with them.
Or, to put it in historical perspective, if we had sailed the USS Constitution up to London and fired just one broadside at them……we would be at war. All it takes for a war is for ONE side to decide that it is at war. If I was Syria….I’d be at war.
But we aren’t Syria and they have violated the rules of humanity.
I actually don’t care what they think. The President has not requested to declare war on them. That is the difference.
@Furby McPhee
What interests do we have in attacking the government of Syria? And if he DOES succeed in sinking a destroyer or escalates by handing off a canister of gas to Hezbollah….?
Its not just Starry and myself.
Ted Cruz and Dennis Kucinich are also in agreement.
Two A-holes in agreement. What’s the common denominator? ahem…..
Cruz and Kucinich, just to clarify.
This is definitely not a partisan issue if you talk amongst a variety of people. From what I am seeing, the Neo-cons and the ultra liberals are on the same side.
So…for those of you that support military action…there are now reports that
a) the Arabs are offering to pay for a full invasion
b) Saudi Arabia and Qatar have been seeking to drive a gas pipeline through Syria and Turkey to supply Europe with gas
c) Russia, the current supplier and Syria have said “no.”
d) Sec. Kerry has come out and declared that Syria’s fundamentalist terrorist rebels are actually secular: “The rebels “have changed significantly — they have improved, and as I said earlier, the fundamentals of Syria are secular, and I believe, will stay that way,” insisted Kerry,…..
http://dailycaller.com/2013/09/04/kerry-insists-syrian-rebels-are-secular/
What was that about blood for oil?
All of those are side issues. How about violating the Geneva Convention rules of war?
You don’t gas people. You don’t kill people with germ warfare. You don’t exterminate folks.
That to me is really the only issue.
If there are ways to punish them other than missile strikes, lets hear the ways.
So what happens when the next guy gets gas happy? What happens when one of them sneaks that crap into the United States?
Cargo, why do you think the blogs you go to have information that our state dept and CIA don’t have?
@Moon-howler
And if the rebels are the ones using gas? Then what? We help Assad?
Both sides are brutal, terroristic, monsters.
Notice…. I did not say that those that support the attack are wrong….or anything like that. The motive to support are individual.
All I’m doing is providing more information about the motives of the rebels and the rebel supporters.
Furthermore, why didn’t we attack Russia and Iraq back when they used gas and other chemical weapons.
Syria, I think, is not a signatory of those Geneva conventions.
As for the info…who says that the state dept and CIA don’t have this info? I never said that. But why would they reveal anything? The CIA won’t and State will only reveal info that bolsters their agenda.
Apparently what I’ve remarked on is common knowledge. Its been reported in the press.
Fascinating. How things change.
At the 3:30 minute mark….the heart of matter begins, in my opinion.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aKdv2AqPwTw&feature=share&list=PLqXFFnLfxnULJ0A1qd85hfkYRjLZ2GgLp
To paraphrase: The US cannot use moralism to justify interventions.
Interesting.
However,when something like using chemical warfare is taken into consideration, is the US alone in applying moralism? When something is not the norm, are those who object necessarily guilty of moralism?
There is also the fact that perhaps Kerry has grown up a little. We all have since the early 70’s. Kerry has even learned to talk like the man on the 6:00 o’clock news, to quote that old song, Good Ole Boys like Me.
I had a real hard time getting past how freaking affected Buckley and Kerry really are. What a bunch of pompous asses. Now I know why I never listened to Buckley. My eyes glazed over in instant boredom. Kerry–not quite as bad but I sure wouldn’t have wanted to go drinking with him back in the day.
He has improved a little. Not quite such a pompous ass.
What is the end game? Assume we take the shot across the bow and Syria retaliates with a few shots across our bow (on the homeland). What then? Unfortunately we and the pundits do not have all the information and our Congressional leaders who do have access to all (most) of the known information choose to grand stand for political purposes. There is no win here just a lose lose no matter what we do.
I woul like to think we could send a cruise missile or two in to where that sarin is being made. No such luck on that one.
You are pretty much right…lose lose.
Maybe a delegation from the civilized world, ie, all the countries who have signed that particular Geneva accord regarding nerve gas, should just go into Syria and present the paperwork to Assad and demand that he sign it there, on the spot.
If we ever want to be taken seriously, we have to attack Syria. We made a red line, they crossed it. It’s really that simple. If we don’t act here, will North Korea or Iran believe us when we say not to use nukes?
There’s a real easy way out of this for Assad.
He needs to join the Communist Party, and announce Syria’s commitment to a dictatorship of the proletariat. Democrats won’t touch a communist, and it would be a great way to get sympatico with the Obama Administration. Who knows, maybe Asma al-Assad would get a seat next to Michelle O. at next year’s SOTU.
@Furby McPhee
According to President Obama, he didn’t make a red line. He, apparently, didn’t do anything at all.
If we just wait a little while longer, all the people in Syria will have left. Problem solved.
@George S. Harris
Well….it would be like Fallujah. The only ones left will be the bad guys…..”nuke it from orbit…its the only way to be sure.”
Forgot the link
http://youtu.be/aCbfMkh940Q
Oh…wow…. instead of share, it embedded.
Where is it? invisible?
So what do you think should be done? I am not insistent on doing the cruise missile thing. If someone can think of something else to do to a regime that lobs 50 pound canisters of sarin into the suburbs of Damascus, I am more than willing to listen.
Today, Sarin gas, tomorrow bioweapons, next week, dirty bombs.
You don’t see it? Its a you tube vid snippet from ALIENS…. the nuke it from orbit….
As for the lobbing of sarin…again…. the rebels too have sarin…. and so far, no proof that it was the gov’t. AND the UN stated that the rebels used gas in May.
As long as there is a question….who do we punish?
So, what do YOU suggest that we do? Nothing suggested so far by the President will do a darn thing to stop Syrian gov’t use and if its the rebels…it will encourage them to frame the gov’t again.
We cannot destroy the gov’t stockpiles or their delivery systems. And if we harm Assad enough that he loses….the terrorists gain his weapons.
It is fairly conclusive that the sarin was set off by Assad’s military based on amounts and delivery system.
I don’t know enough about sarin gas to argue the technicalities.
I forgot to answer your question.
You asked what I think we should be doing.
We should be making sure that refugees in neighboring countries are being treated well. We should swamp the area with intel assets to find out as much as we can. We should decide what we will do if a country is proven to be using WMD and President Obama should go before Congress and get approval for actions to be done in case it happens. THAT way everybody is on the same page. He should also keep his mouth shut about “red lines” etc.
However, if we decide that military action is necessary due to WMD use…. are we going to hold ALL nations accountable that way? Or just little ones that we can bully? Will we bomb Russia if they use chemical weapons on the Chechens, or China if they use it on …whomever?
If we decide that force is a proper response, then we had better beef up our military back to cold war levels…because its sure isn’t capable of operations like that now.
Have the Russians used WMD on anyone?
I know that they have had them used on them.
Hit submit too soon.
Also, in this case…we should stay out. TWO of our enemies are killing each other. WE don’t have a good guy to back. Yes….gas is horrible. But we had no reaction to 100,000 other deaths…. To be blunt…. dead is dead. Death by shooting, explosion, fire, and/or torture is no less horrible. And I say that as someone that could have been a target for WMD. Why didn’t we decide that we had to stop the rebels in THEIR massacres? There’s even video.
If we have proof that Assad gassed his people….. I still don’t think that we should go in. The only reason that we would look bad is because the President made his “red line” statement. The first rule of warfare….never warn the enemy or bluster unless you can absolutely destroy them.
There are rules. Gassing people has been taboo since WWI. It sounds like you are ready to throw out all the international laws mankind has agreed upon to stop atrocities.
Then you will get gassings, dirty bombs, germ warfare, and all sorts of terrorism.
@Moon-howler
Sorry for the delay in answering–busy, busy week.
I supported war in Iraq, because the primary objective there was regime change. While WMDs were a big part of the justification, they were not the only justification. Iraq was viewed as a threat to the U.S because it violated the terms of the 1991 Gulf War cease fire and was thought to be a threat to the U.S.cand its interests.
The sole justification for attacking Syria is WMD use. There are conflicting reports about chemical use by both the rebels and the regime, plus bad actors on both sides are involved. In my opinion, WMD use in Syria does not necessarily rise to the level of a direct threat to the U.S.; correspondingly, there is no clear reason that the US military should be used to support either side, given their hostility to western values.
It is a terrible thing that WMDs were used against civilians, but there are plenty of examples in which the U.S. avoided involvement when no other interest was involved. A prime example was Rwanda where hundreds of thousands were hacked to death. There were calls to intervene, but Clinton chose to keep the U.S. out of it. The world is a dangerous place and the U.S. lacks the resources to respond to every atrocity, so it has to limit involvement to cases where some other vital interest is at stake.
Finally,there is the concern over escalation. Given that the civil war in Syria is particularly nasty, there is no reason to suppose that “a shot across the bow” will have much of a deterrent effect. Kerry has already hinted that further action might be warranted if the initial trikes do not change the Syrians’ behavior. At that point, we could find ourselves drawn into a larger operation, which could turn into war.
I hope your week has been busy with good things.
I think we just start off with a different premise. I think the world has decided that some acts of aggression are simply unacceptable in human terms. Agreed upon atrocities always need to be stopped in their tracks. That’s what makes them atrocities. If we stop treating them as atrocities, then they become commonplace and soon conventional. We can’t have gassing people conventional behavior.
In my eyes, its really that simple. I am extremely disappointed in Great Britain, France, Canada, Germany and the other western countries. How quickly some of them have forgotten.
“Never Forget” becomes nothing more than hollow rhetoric if we ignore atrocities against mankind. When we turn a blind eye regarding atrocities, do we silently give our consent? Do we become complicit? Those are the questions not only Americans should be asking but also the rest of the responsible world.
This is a tough one for me- on the one hand, I’m not sure I see the difference between killing people with chemical weapons and bombs or guns or a machete- why act here, now? On the other hand, you can’t just let lawless states go completely wild, especially those that are aligned with Iran and Russia. North Korea and others are watching.
Obviously, any comparisons to the Iraq War are silly. No one is proposing a ground war for regime change here. It’s actually doubtful anyone could do a worse job in war planning or execution than the “Bush Boys”- Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, et al. The idea that Iraq was ever any threat to the U.S. was laughable, just as it is with Syria. There is a case to be made in Syria regarding the threat to our regional allies. The Iraq War actually strengthened our major foe in the region- Iran.
Having said all that, I think the Obama administration is making a pretty good mess out of foreign policy. No clear direction, no clear policy, flim-flam and flip-flopping is what I see. I think he’s lost. I’m certainly no expert, but it seems that an Israeli- style quick response to even the playing field in Syria between Assad and the “good” rebels would have been the way to go. And there ARE “good” rebels over there…
I heard today that is what Israel wants. I am trying to wrap my mind around it all.
Not sure who the good rebels are vs bad rebels.
Is it a case of the enemy of my enemy is my friend?
@middleman
I actually agree with a lot of what you wrote. But I think that its the “bad rebels” that have decimated the “good rebels,” not Assad.
@Moon-howler
The Afghans reported that the Soviets used chemical warfare on them.
As for it being pretty conclusive that it was Assad’s military… how so? Has the UN or US presented the actual evidence yet? The UN reported in May that the rebels had sarin.
The bad rebels are the one’s linked to Al Queda, Iran, Muslim Brotherhood, etc. The good rebels (from America’s perspective) are average Syrians who are fed up with Assad and terrorism and war and want their country back so they can raise their families and be left alone to live their lives. Just like us…