by your spineless reckoning we should have avoided the conflict in Germany 1938. The world is cruel but if any state has the means to lessen the suffering of another, they should try. Even when they are wrong, they do less damage than to let mass murderers have free reign.
in your isolationist world the richest most powerful country casts a cold eye upon the rest of the world, how sad. If american reap the rewards of being the global consumer of last choice, we at least can dump some of our billions into the rest of the world If not, I'll impress upon you, that there is no such thing as an isolationist superpower.
In 1917, the United States intervened in a European war that it, largely, had almost no interests in. Had the United States not intervened, given the German troops transferring from the eastern front, Germany might well have been the one dictating terms, especially if it continued to execute submarine warfare. But Woodrow Wilson felt that we must intervene to "make the world safe for democracy".
Did he make the world safe for democracy? Rather not. The fall of Germany, especially in the way in which it fell, helped pave the way for both the long-term success of the USSR and the rise of Nazi Germany, perhaps the two most cruel regimes in history. Thousands of American lives were spent for
nothing. Less than nothing, actually.
There are different means of measuring a superpower. Certainly, I believe in a strong military, although perhaps not one as expensive as ours. But whether we want to call ourselves a superpower or not - and I wonder at the arrogance of doing so, at times - what moral law dictates that a superpower is responsible for its neighbors?
The argument for intervening in Syria seems to be a moral one. But where is this morality when the Chinese oppress the Tibetans, when the Russians slaughter Chechens, when Iran hangs and/or stones innocents? Is our military moral police only supposed to intervene against weak criminals? Of course, this is a matter of practicality - the United States is not going to start a war with Russia to save the Chechens. Why not? Because the responsibility of the United State's government is to protect its own citizens, not send them off to war to die for others. A war with Russia or China might eventually be enormously beneficial for oppressed peoples in those countries, but it would be devastating for the United States, even in the highly likely event that we won. We naturally seek to avoid outcomes that are unfavorable for us. Why are we to suddenly exempt ourselves from this practicality?
We elect and select our leaders based on the expectation that they will do the best they can for the American people. If we were truly interested in the best for other countries, we wouldn't prosecute people for treason when they spy for those countries. We wouldn't become upset when those countries act in ways that take advantage of us. But we do. This world actually is cold and cruel, and countries that act without care for their own interests tend to be devoured quickly.
Yes, it is horrible to see dead children. But, again, so what? Why are dead Syrians more important than American lives, and American treasure? More to the point, by what authority or moral precept are we obligated to save others at our own cost?
Decisions made on the basis of emotion are bad decisions. Demanding that entities sacrifice their own interests is generally unreasonable. The powerful are not obligated by virtue of being powerful to serve the interests of those who are not - my status as a relatively well-muscled individual does not obligate me to carry heavy objects for everyone who cannot. And it is not the responsibility of the American people to make everything work for everyone else. If that inspires a nation here or there to not sell things to us, this will not harm us as much as trying to fix things for others already has.
It's one thing if rescuing Syrians or fighting for them was useful. But it doesn't seem to be, in a strict cost-benefit analysis. Why is it our responsibility to fix things for others? Why should it be? You aren't obligated to risk your life to save a drowning person. You aren't obligated to use all your excess assets to save those starving in other countries. So why is it reasonable to ask that the government of the United States tell its military men that they must risk their lives to save people they have no investment in saving, and also to inform American taxpayers that billions of dollars that might be spent on education or food aid in
our country, on behalf of the people who contributed towards it, are now to be devoted to a nation who, if we are lucky, just might barely avoid sending armed men to our shores to kill our women and children.
Author
Topic: U.S. vs Syria (Read 12878 times)