Backstage - OOC Forums
General Discussion => The Speakeasy: OOG/Off-topic Discussion => Topic started by: Anslol on 26 Aug 2013, 10:46
-
http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/26/world/meast/syria-civil-war/index.html?hpt=hp_t2 (http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/26/world/meast/syria-civil-war/index.html?hpt=hp_t2)
Opinions? Personally, I think America needs to stay the hell away. We have way too much shit to worry about here at home. Shit that needs to take priority over international problems. We are not the world police.
What do you think?
-
I went with 'no' on the poll...though to be honest, this is a situation that is rather complicated. Ideally, the UN should be stepping in, but with Russia refusing to budge, I'm not sure what can be done...neither side here is innocent and that is the big stumbling block.
Also, I'm not convinced that the rebels are any better for the area. Whichever way you look at it, Syria is a bad situation for anyone looking to just go in and attempt to stop the conflict.
-
I went with 'no' on the poll...though to be honest, this is a situation that is rather complicated. Ideally, the UN should be stepping in, but with Russia refusing to budge, I'm not sure what can be done...neither side here is innocent and that is the big stumbling block.
Also, I'm not convinced that the rebels are any better for the area. Whichever way you look at it, Syria is a bad situation for anyone looking to just go in and attempt to stop the conflict.
Bingo. So why should we? Why is it our job? There is no right or wrong side here, like you said. It's just bad. All bad. We should stay faaaar away from this crap and tend to our own house....even though United Tech just signed a $1 billion deal with the Pentagon to make 39 more F-35 engines (Batch #6)....
-
The 100,000 or so exploded into pieces and gassed to death civilians.... men, women, children, and babies, are certainly excited we might stick this one out.
When Russia and Iran oppose an international action, it can generally be assumed we should probably be doing the opposite of what they want.
And the UN is such a ridiculous joke at this point.
-
What i find tragically hilarious about this awful, awful thing is that up until now the killing of thousand and thousands and thousands of people is barely a blip on our radar, until they change the format of the killing.
Exploding 100,000 people with bullets, bombs, etc? Super fine! Have at it!
Kill a few hundred with a 'bad' weapon? AWW HELL NAWW
-
The existence of such a thing as a UN security council veto defeats the purpose of that council even existing. It is literally the most counter-productive thing they could possibly have. The fact that five nations have said veto, one of which is fucking RUSSIA, means that I lack the imagination to produce a descriptive hyperbole for how stupid that is which wouldn't be an understatement.
How the fuck hard is it to just have a "simple majority" rule?
-
The existence of such a thing as a UN security council veto defeats the purpose of that council even existing. It is literally the most counter-productive thing they could possibly have. The fact that five nations have said veto, one of which is fucking RUSSIA, means that I lack the imagination to produce a descriptive hyperbole for how stupid that is which wouldn't be an understatement.
How the fuck hard is it to just have a "simple majority" rule?
So much this.
I find the entire organization loses any and all credibility when permanent and other members can openly support all sorts of awful things and stop corrective actions. the US has been on the wrong side of this a few times, but I'll throw up the lovely entire bloc of shit-head countries that continue to do things like support Assad or similar against that record any day.
-
which of the xenophobic, theocratic, cannibal, groups is proposed to be the replacement for Assad ?
"Do Something in Syria!". but what? All the options are terrible!
-
which of the xenophobic, theocratic, cannibal, groups is proposed to be the replacement for Assad ?
"Do Something in Syria!". but what? All the options are terrible!
Quite right, extremely problematic and difficult. Which is ironic because the more secular rebels used to be in control and we could have worked with them much more easily. :bash:
I think it might look something like the US / EU allies doing a no-fly zone and limited airstrikes while supporting local rebel allies like Turkey etc doing more of the on-the-ground assistance.
-
Bleh. Conflicts of interest hidden behind noble ideals as always.
-
Pretty much a clusterfuck. There really aren't good options, just varying degrees of terrible. I saw an interesting analysis of Syria's moves and they way they'd used the chemical weapons threat to essentially earn carte blanc to kill people. It went something like this:
They've got chemical weapons, and everyone knows it. About the same time that they're getting a lot of heat for massacring people, they make a statement about securing those weapons against the rebels, never using them against their own people, but possibly against an outside force. So now everyone is talking about the chemical weapons and how it would be a "red line" blah blah blah... meanwhile Syria can keep killing people via conventional weapons and no one will bat an eye.
They also did some clever things like releasing a bunch of islamist terrorists from prison so that they could join and discredit the opposition.
If the international community was going to do anything about Al-Assad, they needed to do it over a year ago, when the opposition was still mostly free of Al Qaeda and associated terrorists. At this point, I'm not sure that any of the options involving outside intervention are actually better than just sitting back and letting it burn for a generation (or three) until they decide to stop killing each other.
-
Unless there's an international treaty that requires us to step in, you can safely assume I don't support direct military intervention.
-
"Injustice anywhere is injustice everywhere." right?
But yea its always awful and complicated.
Do I want Syrian civilians dying to these assholes? No. Do I want a bunch of 18 year old Americans over there dying to protect them? Not really, no.
-
which of the xenophobic, theocratic, cannibal, groups is proposed to be the replacement for Assad ?
"Do Something in Syria!". but what? All the options are terrible!
As a foreigner not directly affected by US policy (that is, im not in US soil), the above applies perfectly.
The white hats want to do the "right" thing, the problem is .....its a naive proposition.
-
The point of no return was 1 year ago. It s far too late now. We will do more harm than good. The "tomahawk" option at a pinch would do in the right circumstances. But right now the whole thing is toxic. The best we can do is contain the conflict, provide aid to refugees, track and limit interference by external interests. Not clean, but best solution available.
Also, Lyn, I think more than a single sentence is a fair courtesy to other readers on a topic like this.
-
which of the xenophobic, theocratic, cannibal, groups is proposed to be the replacement for Assad ?
"Do Something in Syria!". but what? All the options are terrible!
Execute order 66.
-
Also a rather salient irony is that in foreign affairs, China is far ahead of any western power in actually obeying international law. And maybe stepping into a minefield here but, international law came to be for good reason.
-
At the risk of creating hate (and debate), I'm going to be the one that says yes. However, I should specify that this is in direct answer to the question given. If it's proven that chemical weapons were used, then yes. If they weren't, then should we intervene? No.
The problem, is that this is one of those "Damned if you do, damned if you don't situations" for the US. If we do do something, we're imperialist, aggressive, warmongering, etc. If we don't do anything, we have effectively given up on the middle east (again). We leave room for (should Assad) win out, to continue being Assad and continuing to create a hostile region with good buddy Iran. And if the rebels win out, they'll remember we weren't there and we're no better off than had Assad won (Afghanistan following the Russians).
Now, in support of yes to chems. Ordinarily, I would say no, again. However...Obama already made his little red line speech. To do nothing, when that line is crossed, gives every other line crosser the backing they need to cross whatever lines we put down. (Hey Kim Jong Un, don't set off that nuke over Seoul, if you do, you'll have crossed a red line from which there is no *KERPLOWAMERICADOESNOTHINGSHAME*) We'll be the dog that barks, but never bites. Essentially, we've backed ourselves into a corner where if we don't do something - we're worse off. If we do do something, we're par the course and the world hates us just a little bit more.
As someone who may or may not go there should something go down. Please don't take me for a warmonger. I hate the heat. Cold climes any day.
-
Also a rather salient irony is that in foreign affairs, China is far ahead of any western power in actually obeying international law. And maybe stepping into a minefield here but, international law came to be for good reason.
The PRC is incredibly concerned with sovereignty and thus outside of its own borders is very careful to abide by international law. However, the application of treaty law within its own borders is an entirely different subject. An example of this is international copyright law.
In addition, the Chinese practice lawfare (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawfare), by passing national laws that provide justification for potential future action. For example, the PRC passed an Anti-Secession Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Secession_Law), which can be viewed as legal precursor to an invasion of Taiwan should the Taiwanese declare independence.
We'll be the dog that barks, but never bites. Essentially, we've backed ourselves into a corner where if we don't do something - we're worse off. If we do do something, we're par the course and the world hates us just a little bit more.
As someone who may or may not go there should something go down. Please don't take me for a warmonger. I hate the heat. Cold climes any day.
This is the crux of the problem.
But in addition, beyond cruise missile strikes, it may still take time for the US to shift resources to back an effective no-fly zone campaign (something called for by various politicians).
The US Military has told the SecState that it is unable to pursue air strikes in Syria. (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-18/pentagon-shoots-down-kerry-s-syria-airstrike-plan.html) Simply put, the personnel that have not been busy in Afghanistan or preparing for a rotation to Afghanistan, have not been flying/training. To get them combat ready again takes time.
I do not want the US Military to lead another nation-building effort in a Middle Eastern country, whose borders the French and Brits drew up following WWI. If Europe wants to step up and take it on, I am all for supporting their efforts by providing them with support in the form of capabilities they do not have organically. Perhaps it is simply us putting our noses into business that is not ours, it is not like we have our house in order.
Edit: Didn't vote, the answer is complicated. You could ask the question should the US conduct retaliatory strikes against Country X if it used nuclear weapons and I would still say it is complicated.
-
I tend to be more practical.
Could we save lives if we intervened in Syria? Yeah, probably. Should we? No. The interests of the United States are not served by trying to save lives around the globe.
Decision consequences:
1. If we intervene, and fail, we will appear weak.
2. If we intervene, and succeed, we will be hated by most of the new regime. Many of them are virulently anti-U.S. now, and historically, aiding or encouraging rebel movements in the Middle East has not worked out for us. Moreover, rebellions tend to put more ideologically motivated and radical people into power, as opposed to people who simply want to maintain power. The radical line in the Middle East is a radically anti-American one.
3. If we do not intervene, and Assad loses, we will likely face the same situation as 2, but with the rebels weakened by losses. Syria will be a weaker state, and we will have spent no blood or treasure.
4. If we do not intervene, and Assad wins, we will have a weakened authoritarian state that will be unlikely to court further hostilities with us, and we will have lost nothing.
In terms of international relations, we are going to be blamed for whatever happens. If we intervene, the international media will happily criticize us for aiding terrorists, plaster pictures of the results of every errant bomb or collateral damage event, and we will generally be tarred with the "aggressive, warmongering" brush. If we do not intervene, we will be considered selfish, arrogant, blind to the suffering of others, etc. However, in the latter event, the United States will not have spent dollars and lives on protecting people whose safety and happiness brings us no advantage.
Therefore, the best approach for the United States is to let the Syrians kill each other until one side or another achieves victory, or it becomes a failed state. Either way, it's not our problem. If anything, it's the Israeli's problem, and they get enough aid from us to where they should pull their own weight if necessary.
P.S. Actually, considering the fact that both sides in Syria are likely to remain our enemies, from a - purely - pragmatic approach, we should attempt to prolong the fighting as long as is possible, so that the final result is a state too weakened to pose any sort of threat to its neighbors, or to provide any sort of aid to other of our enemies.
-
it becomes a failed state.
P.S. Actually, considering the fact that both sides in Syria are likely to remain our enemies, from a - purely - pragmatic approach, we should attempt to prolong the fighting as long as is possible, so that the final result is a state too weakened to pose any sort of threat to its neighbors, or to provide any sort of aid to other of our enemies.
Failed states are exactly the problem however. A failed state is a fertile base camp for those who oppose civilization and what it stands for. They truly prefer a world in which physical might makes right. Those possessing intelligence or capable of independent thought are at best marginalized and at worst killed for daring to oppose the chief.
No, even with our enemies I prefer that the enemy have some notion of civilization that their societies not revert to prehistorical structures.
-
This isn't about an Agenda. The US govt was perfectly fine with the Assad government as long as it was stable, fairly peaceful, and actually quite accepting of the many groups within their own country. I even have an article lying about where National Geographic did a piece on how good Syria is doing now that Bashar Assad is in charge. The issue is the mass killing by a government of their own people. It's shameful that the UN has done nothing. It's shameful that the US did nothing earlier when it would have made more of a difference. This is ever more shameful because the prime reason why, is it was election season.
War's terrible. I've been there and I'm the first to admit it. I still have nightmares. But I also know that people should not have their house bombed with jets, or shelled with nerve gas because they don't live in an Alawite neighborhood. That's even more terrible to me.
I support international action, of any sort, to put an end to these killings. I'm getting a bit fat and old for military service, but if the US gets involved, there's a strong possibility that I'll visit the Army recruiter and see if they need a veteran Arabic speaker for a fourth combat tour.
Edit: It's not US vs. Syria. It's US vs. Assad.
To the people who say we'd be more hated for acting, maybe. You could be right. But I'm willing to bet you've never been powerless in the face of an attack helicopter or cloud of nerve gas before. If my country was torn apart by war, I'd only hate the world for not putting a stop to it.
2nd edit: corrected a spelling error. Also I'd rather be criticized by the media then allow genocide to continue if I had the power to stop it.
-
Disclaimer: I'm not US. I will be soon, but even so, I'm British and probably always will be in the way I think and operate.
With that out of the way, and at the risk of sounding like an asshole, I'd say no. There's definitely accusations of hypocrisy to be made (doesn't matter how many you kill, so long as you do it with the right weapons? Hmm...), and Vikarion makes a good point about how there's pretty much no way that Syria emerges from this healthy.
More than that, though, I'm going to call the whole focus as bullshit. Syria is hardly unique as far as civil wars, terrorism and mass murders go, it just happens to be the only one that sits on the front page - and I'd be willing to bet that it wouldn't be there if it wasn't part of the whole 'Arab spring' media circus. Venezuela, a country where I have relatives, has been in the shithouse for years, only going downhill - and not only are there no calls for anything to be done, 'impartial' representatives have given it the OK. Not even joking. The referendum to oust the late President Chavez had foreign oversight, including Jimmy Carter, and nobody batted an eyelid at the blatant rigging. Now Chavez is dead, Caracas is more or less dissolving into gang warfare, and where's that in the news?
So, once again, at the risk of sounding like a giant asshole... why should we care? The world is a pretty shitty place. We lucky people live in security, freedom and relative abundance. Does that give us a responsibility to help out those less fortunate? Probably, but we don't have the resources to help everyone, and I'd rather not have those resources dictated by the media. Syria's a hopeless case. Let's go find somewhere that we can actually do some good.
-
If someone is about to die, and you know how to help, would you do it? Even if it's inconvenient?
How about a few hundred people?
Follow this arguement to it's logical conclusion and you reach the point where we discuss how ethical it is to end a life. There is no good answer that I know of, but I suck at philosophy. I hate war, I hate suffering. But I'd gladly go back to war to prevent more suffering if I could.
-
The question asked in the survey is wrong, in my opinion.
US is only looking for a pretext for bomb Syria.
The question is not "if" but "when".
-
If someone is about to die, and you know how to help, would you do it? Even if it's inconvenient?
How about a few hundred people?
Follow this arguement to it's logical conclusion and you reach the point where we discuss how ethical it is to end a life. There is no good answer that I know of, but I suck at philosophy. I hate war, I hate suffering. But I'd gladly go back to war to prevent more suffering if I could.
Don't get me wrong. I understand that position, and I applaud it. I'm just not so sure it truly applies here. To whit, if someone is about to die, and you can do something that might save them, but could well get you killed as well, should you do it?
I'm cynical, I'm afraid, but not judgmental. If the answer to that for you (for anyone, come to that) is 'yes', more power to you.
-
That's actually a very accurate point Reppy. When I was trained a as a combat medic, the first thing we did in any situation was assess the danger level. You don't run into the middle of a firefight to give someone mouth-to-mouth.
and given my own experience, yes. I have risked my life for others and I actually have nightmares about the times I wasn't able to risk such for other people.
To return to the actual arguement. Yes. I'd put myself into a risky situation just to save one life of someone I've never met. I have done it before, and I'd do it again. I'm not some hero or martyr. There are hundreds, if not thousands of people who would try to do the same.
Lanate: Remember how the whole world thought the US was killing people for money? I do to, I was there. Except now, Russia is killing people for money. No seriously, jets and attack helicopters cost millions of Euros, and you can bet that business is good in Syria right now.
Letting people die for money is wrong. I stood against it when my country was the perpetrator, and now I'm willing to stand against it when another is.
-
Yeah, see, the thing is, I don't hold that we have an obligation to save people in other countries, or to save the countries themselves. We, as a nation (and this goes for other nations) are first and foremost concerned with the welfare of our own citizens.
Actually, I don't even accept that it is an obligation for someone to sacrifice their lives or happiness for another. Why should it be? No, I do not intend to sell my computer and my books, games, and etc to provide someone in Africa with food and shelter, even if that would save their life. Nor do I intend to live as simply as possible and work as hard as possible to generate as much money as I can for those less fortunate than I. If I am morally obligated to help others less fortunate than I, I would be so obligated to do the above. But I don't see how such a policy is practical for either individuals or nations.
So yes, it is sad that people are being gassed in Syria. But, quite frankly, so what? It's not the fault of the U.S. that the Middle East is a most bad place to live - a good portion of that probably goes to the European colonial powers. And, no, Syria as a failed state will probably not be worse for the U.S. than Syria as the semi-state-sponsor-of-terror it has been. After all, Somalia isn't exporting all that many terrorists. Actually, if we really wanted to hit the biggest supporter of terror, we should bomb Saudi Arabia.
There's simply no compelling reason for us to support one side or another in Syria. We've already tried nation-building. Turns out, some people prefer shooting each other, for whatever reasons. Other people prefer holding onto power. What people don't generally seem to be interested in is making friends with us after we try to help them, or after we try to blow them up. Nor does foreign aid seem to make people like us. Hell, there are plenty of people in South Korea who hate us, and they have quite excellent reasons not to. People are xenophobic and nationalistic. It's just the way things are.
So, there is nothing to be gained for American citizens in the American military trying to prevent genocides, famines, or whatnot. Places that have these things tend to be places that don't have all that much useful for us. And we select our leaders to look after our own interests, not those of other nations or other peoples. By all means, contribute privately, but realistically, our government should not try to protect the lives of citizens in other nations.
-
how utilitarian of you. It's easy to be a hardass on the internet. When you see burned children and people with their lower jaw blown off by bombs you start to sympathise with what happens in the shitty parts of the worlds. Drag bodies out of the river with wounds carved by power tools and you start to see first hand what sectarian violence is all about.
When you see shit like that, if you're a real man, you're willing to leave your 9-5 then log onto Eve bullshit life to make a difference.
-
how utilitarian of you. It's easy to be a hardass on the internet. When you see burned children and people with their lower jaw blown off by bombs you start to sympathise with what happens in the shitty parts of the worlds. Drag bodies out of the river with wounds carved by power tools and you start to see first hand what sectarian violence is all about.
When you see shit like that, if you're a real man, you're willing to leave your 9-5 then log onto Eve bullshit life to make a difference.
It's not ITG. I've done my best to familiarize myself with atrocities and human suffering. But emotions are not, in my opinion, a good basis for national policy.
Theoretically, we could achieve the maximum benefit for everyone if everyone worked as hard as they could to contribute to a common weal, and from that pot each took as much as could be afforded for the happiness of everyone. Theoretically. In practice, it turns out that humans, as with all other genetically competing organisms, do not work that way.
The body of a burned or gassed child does not change the fact that humans are a somewhat xenophobic, superstitious, and often irrationally violent species. Nor does it change the fact that self-interest is a better long-term survival strategy than self-sacrificing charity. Our hearts are torn by the harms done to others, certainly. But they aren't that torn, because I note that we're still posting on a forum largely about Eve Online. This is because we live in a universe where the best strategy for survival and reproduction (for us) is selfishness with limited cooperation.
What practical purpose does intervening in the affairs of another country's agony serve? Will they become our allies? No. Do they have valuable natural resources? No. Can they offer us a cheap source of labor? Even if they could, we already have plenty. What benefits would we gain from sacrificing our children to Russian-built SAMs? None. Except, perhaps, that a few of us might feel better before we go off to read about something else. Small comfort, I would note, for the parents of those pilots, no?
We elect our leaders to do the best for our country (as opposed to other countries) so that we, the citizens of our country, will survive and, hopefully thrive. It is a breach of that trust (as it was in Iraq) for our leaders to engage in spending our blood and treasure in actions which will bring us no benefit. Is this cruel? No, and it isn't some badass boast, either. It's just accounting.
And lest you think that my sort of accounting is cruel, note that it would also have kept us out of Vietnam and Iraq. Are the children lost in those conflicts less than Syrian ones? Adopt a policy that works in the long run, not one that saves you discomfort now.
-
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.
-
If not, I'll impress upon you, that there is no such thing as an isolationist superpower.
The USSR tried it for a while. Didn't work out so well.
Although Vikarion's point is a logical extreme, I'm not sure your WW2 comparison holds up. Nazi Germany was a superpower in its own right, and the British and French were under imminent threat. The US was not directly threatened immediately, but if the Nazis had won the war in Europe, that would've been extremely awkward - not to mention having the potential for another war right on its heels, if the Germans had not gone ahead and made a strike anyway. As it was, the Japanese made it all a moot point, and history turned out as it did.
To all intents and purposes, Vietnam and Korea were dick-measuring contests between the US and USSR, and the first Gulf was everyone playing world police. Gulf II, Afghanistan and now (hypothetically) Syria are all cases where the US itself is in no way threatened.
Not necessarily supporting his argument, just making a debating point.
-
I'm sorry but I think there is a lot of naivety in this thread.
We do realize that there are elements of the rebels supported/backed by al-Qaeda, the same people we were supposed to be fighting for the past ten years? We do realize that if the rebels win, we will likely have an extreme Islamist government that will persecute religious minorities, something the relatively moderate Assad didn't do by protecting the Christian minority? Strategically, an extremist-governed Syria is weaker than a moderate-governed Syria. Moreover, Syria is Iran's biggest ally. Getting Islamist rebels into power will weaken Iran in the long-term.
This really has nothing to do with chemical weapons or just causes; what if it was the rebels who were using chemical weapons? Chances are, BOTH sides have used chemical weapons. If we went in there, we'd have no idea who are the good guys and who are the bad guys. I've got a contact in the US Army, MI for about ten years. Not only does he agree that this is about a strategic weakening of Iran, but he also suggests that the military sweetspot for intervention was more than a year ago.
I also find it extremely rich that Westerners seem to discredit anything Russia or China says just because they're Russia and China. Have we seen the democratic consensus in the UK regarding Syria? Absolutely against it. Despite this, the British government is drawing up "contingency plans". So much for democratic government and abiding by the will of the people. At least our governments aren't foolish enough for a land invasion.
This is the same thing with the CIA and MI6 backing the Iranian coup. It's extremely short-sighted. We're going to put in an extremist government into Syria for short-term concerns, and it'll probably bite us in the ass in the future just like with Iran.
-
Could we save lives if we intervened in Syria? Yeah, probably. Should we? No. The interests of the United States are not served by trying to save lives around the globe....
Therefore, the best approach for the United States is to let the Syrians kill each other until one side or another achieves victory, or it becomes a failed state. Either way, it's not our problem. If anything, it's the Israeli's problem, and they get enough aid from us to where they should pull their own weight if necessary.
I'll be flamed for this but +1 Vikarion.
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.
That was a different time and different world. Technology grew, armies grew, we got better at killing each other, and politics got even more complicated. We, as a nation, can't keep playing the cowboy hero and go out saving the world. It isn't our place. Much like pre-WW2, we must reassess, withdraw, and consolidate if we are to grow and thrive once again. I'm an American citizen first and foremost. It's sad to see what happens in the world, but it's more sad to see that we put their interests above our own. We have our own people homeless, jobless, going hungry, dying and suffering without healthcare, becoming victims of homicide and brutal torture at the hands of the cartels, etc. The list goes on, and on, and on, and on.
We got our own problems. Let's deal with them.
-
The question asked in the survey is wrong, in my opinion.
US is only looking for a pretext for bomb Syria.
The question is not "if" but "when".
I disagree entirely. The current administration had been looking for every excuse to not get involved in Syria and since the first evidence for the use of chemical weapons use in Syria has been doing its best to find ways to politically back peddle away from the "Red Line" comment.
-
(http://i.imgur.com/rF8zCT3.gif)
(http://i.imgur.com/tCGl8K1.gif)
(http://i.imgur.com/MjUtOKM.gif)
-
What difference does such awful imagery make when it could be any side that committed it? What are we supposed to do then?
-
What difference does such awful imagery make when it could be any side that committed it? What are we supposed to do then?
Or worse still when it is us who commit the act.
-
by your spineless reckoning we should have avoided the conflict in Germany 1938.
The intervention of the allies (France and Great Britain, and in '39) had nothing to do with atrocities commited. The build-up was commencing half a decade earlier and did indeed hit a peak in '38, where no one did more than pulling an ambassador out of Berlin in protest. What followed was straight and thorough political interests, and not a humanitarian mission. The holocaust was well known after '41. It is depressing when you start to look into what could've been done, what wasn't done and what was outright refused.
-
I'm sorry but I think there is a lot of naivety in this thread.
To be fair, Seriphyn, the question was not 'should the US go into Syria based on political games', it was 'should the US go into Syria'. The fact that nobody has raised the Iran side of things is more a reflection of a general perception that that's a really stupid motive (regardless of whether it's the 'real' one) rather than lack of comprehension of it.
And it is, incidentally. Iran and North Korea like to beat their chests and pretend to be the scariest guys on the block, but no matter how you spin it, they're extremely small fry in the grand scheme of things, and they know it. The absolute worst case scenario is that they let off a missile and it all goes wrong - well, assuming said missile actually reaches the target (anywhere they might target has had a few decades of paranoid development of countermeasures), they would be annihilated in return. Nuclear armaments have a nice way of making people lose some delusions (unless you count the 'we need them' one, but that's another can of worms for another topic).
In other news, the UK parliament has been officially recalled for a debate and possible vote on the matter. The official government line is that they're looking at a 'measured response that doesn't involve boots on the ground'.
-
Really hope the US and NATO doesnt do this. Winning the war will be fairly easy, winning the peace will be really difficult.
Yes, there will be lots of attrocities. Morality should play a role in geopolitical politics, moral authority does matter, and is a recognized and effective tool for diplomacy. Just not sure how we can stop this particular nightmare from playing out.
-
That said, its more than possible that Turkey is a bit worried about the situation, and is silently pressuring her NATO allies to do something. Iraq is always fragile, and has had an upswing of violence, and a destabilized Syria would give insurgent groups a place to set up bases and launch attacks into Iraq. Jordan, kind of a silent partner of the West (Jordan's king was educated in the US and England, and was once an extra in a Star Trek episode), is no doubt unhappy.
And if you asked me to come up with a top 5 ways in which nuclear weapons were used in anger, a radical government taking over in Syria and moving against Israel would be up there.
-
Everyone seems to take for account that there actually was biochemical weapons involved and that Assad did it.
Perhaps, perhaps not, but considering how image and PR manipulation is the nerve of that war, and that no blatant, irrefutable evidence has been found yet, I will facepalm a thousand times when we will actually go to war and notice that "oops, we were mistaken, it was not mass destruction biochemical weapons".
Also, Lyn, I think more than a single sentence is a fair courtesy to other readers on a topic like this.
What do you want me to say more ? Speaking about idealism is pointless, it's not what drives wars. It's just the sugarcoat to make it acceptable for the masses.
it becomes a failed state.
P.S. Actually, considering the fact that both sides in Syria are likely to remain our enemies, from a - purely - pragmatic approach, we should attempt to prolong the fighting as long as is possible, so that the final result is a state too weakened to pose any sort of threat to its neighbors, or to provide any sort of aid to other of our enemies.
Failed states are exactly the problem however. A failed state is a fertile base camp for those who oppose civilization and what it stands for. They truly prefer a world in which physical might makes right. Those possessing intelligence or capable of independent thought are at best marginalized and at worst killed for daring to oppose the chief.
No, even with our enemies I prefer that the enemy have some notion of civilization that their societies not revert to prehistorical structures.
Yes, that's what almost happened in Mali and providing fertile grounds for that kind of organizations is not really particularly appealing.
Lanate: Remember how the whole world thought the US was killing people for money? I do to, I was there. Except now, Russia is killing people for money. No seriously, jets and attack helicopters cost millions of Euros, and you can bet that business is good in Syria right now.
That is besides the point. Syria has been a russian ally longer before that civil war broke up. Russia sells weapons to half of the countries in the region, the same way the US sell arms to Egypt and Israel, and the same way France sell weapons to Lebanon and the Emirates.
Pots and kettles.
All wage war to protect their interests, believing otherwise is believing in the media sugarcoat.
A russian ambassador said something interesting recently on twitter : "Westerners playing with Middle East are like a monkey playing with a hand grenade"
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.
Actually the US only got involved in the war in Europe because Japan, an ally of the Axis, declared war on them. They could still have not sent help too, yes granted, but still.
Edit : also, for 38, what Desiderya said.
-
I find it pretty funny that we only consider getting militarily involved when something we value is put at risk. So Syria descends into Civil war and gas weapons were used, people died, we get all up in arms about it and consider military action mainly because of the news coverage around the whole event.
Meanwhile in Africa, entire countries starve/fight/kill/commit genocide and who cares? Nobody. At least not anyone enough to step in and "consider military action." Mid-eastern double standard.
I voted yes on this poll because I am morally opposed to chemical weapons being used. That said, is it a good idea to get involved? Not really. War is a impressive political tool though.
-
Much as the image of the plain-spoken god-fearing president putting American boys and girls on the ground to fight for the freedom of the good ol' USA (in Iraq) and against an "axis of evil" is ridiculous, the image of Western world leaders meeting in a dark room and diviying up the world map with a kitchen knife while cackling over profits is equally ridiculous.
You need to be in a FTSE 100 for that.
-
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.
-
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.
Much as I want to blare out messages of the Social Contract, interconnected society, and common good, when it comes to intervention we mostly agree. Leaders must think of their own citizens first and foremost, it's what they are in place to do.
-
Much as I want to blare out messages of the Social Contract, interconnected society, and common good, when it comes to intervention we mostly agree. Leaders must think of their own citizens first and foremost, it's what they are in place to do.
Just as well. I don't agree with those ideas as being validated by our current understanding and knowledge of science. Especially in the areas of game theory, evolutionary biology, and the harder forms of sociology.
-
Is it possible to add a 'don't know' or 'dependent on UN resolution' option? This poll is far from representative and I only voted Yes because of my reading of the current situation - I'll likely flip flop between the two until the button gets pressed for better or worse.
-
Is it possible to add a 'don't know' or 'dependent on UN resolution' option? This poll is far from representative and I only voted Yes because of my reading of the current situation - I'll likely flip flop between the two until the button gets pressed for better or worse.
No. I meant for this poll to be as blunt and straightforward as possible. No it depends, no don't know, no maybe. Either yes, or no, full on.
I said it once and I'll say it again. I don't care what's found, I don't care what country says we should act, and I certainly don't care if we lose face internationally. I am sick to death of us getting involved everywhere in the world save for here at home. Our economy is in the shit. Graduates are coming out with more debt than they can ever HOPE to pay off. Public schools and education are getting budget cuts up the ass. Our infrastructure (roads, power lines, etc) are deteriorating and could be helped, ALONG with our economy, by investing here at home. Our borders are overrun by drug smugglers and a cartel puppet government just on the other side. God dammit, one of our major city's is completely bankrupt and a veritable war zone (Detroit).
I DON'T CARE WHAT THE HELL HAPPENS IN THE MIDDLE EAST ANYMORE! We are NOT the knights of good and honor. We're a country, we have interests, and I'm sick of them getting put on the back burner for others because they say we should act and when we do, we get criticized. Fine. DO IT YOURSELF.
I'm sick of our tax dollars investing and propping up other countries for little/no ROI when it could be used to bolster America. I'm sick of our soldiers dying in wars we don't even have to get involved in. I'm sick of our interventionism.
Fuck the rest, we have our own problems. Bring everyone home, invest in our own economy, and clean up our own house. Who the hell are we to go tell others how to manage their house when ours is in shambles? Screw. That.
-
Ok, my answer remains Yes on the grounds stated in my first post.
-
Sorry that my post offended/ranted. I'm just really done with us 'helping' everyone else but ourselves.
-
[mod]Mod-hat on for a moment.
This thread, as is normal for heated political subjects, has veered dangerously close to the point of no return several times, and there are a number of catacomb-worthy posts in here already.
Stay civil and post within the rules of Backstage or we're going to apply my personal preference for foreign policy: if people can't play nice, glass it from orbit.[/mod]
-
It's not so much that your post offended and/or ranted Anslo, it's more the fact that it's grounded in ignorance.
Foregoing your obligations as a country, which, by the way, were agreed to when becoming a member of the UN, for the purpose of improving personal GDP is morally wrong.
It's one of those situations that can't I can't even cite any evidence to add validity to your wish because there haven't been any situations where what you are suggesting has been considered. Anyone in charge of a country is aware of their obligations to the international community, and acknowledges their role in maintaining world order.
If the situation became such that it was not economically viable for a country to involve themselves in a conflict elsewhere then there'd be more going on than just people saying "I'm sick and tired of people turning to us to sort out world issues".
For the record, I voted yes, for exactly the reasons that Aelisha has already pointed out. The poll is fundamentally flawed.
-
It's not so much that your post offended and/or ranted Anslo, it's more the fact that it's grounded in ignorance.
Foregoing your obligations as a country, which, by the way, were agreed to when becoming a member of the UN, for the purpose of improving personal GDP is morally wrong.
It's one of those situations that can't I can't even cite any evidence to add validity to your wish because there haven't been any situations where what you are suggesting has been considered. Anyone in charge of a country is aware of their obligations to the international community, and acknowledges their role in maintaining world order.
If the situation became such that it was not economically viable for a country to involve themselves in a conflict elsewhere then there'd be more going on than just people saying "I'm sick and tired of people turning to us to sort out world issues".
For the record, I voted yes, for exactly the reasons that Aelisha has already pointed out. The poll is fundamentally flawed.
Alright. We're a member of the UN. Fine. But we have our own system in the US. We don't jump to the call of the UN. We aren't its personal army. It comes to a vote, and the voters don't want it because they know how bad OUR situation is.
You don't live here in the states so I can see why you'd say what you say. But the fact is, it isn't all milk and honey here in America. We can't afford another war, literally. We don't even have the money to pay for public schools. We're just racking up debt on a credit card. The last thing we need is more debt for another war instead of repairing our economy and country. This isn't us being greedy or wanting to bolster our GDP just for the hell of it. We LITERALLY cannot afford anything now.
And for the record, I am sick and tired PERSONALLY. My opinion doesn't reflect the justification of not wanting war for the 90%+ of Americans who don't want it. They're more concerned with a lot of the other reasons I mentioned (infrastructure, economy, etc). We can't afford it and shouldn't have to worry about affording it in the first place. Especially at the cost of the well being of more of our countrymen.
Also, the poll is flawed in your opinion. It is meant to be that way. It is meant to be simple. You answered yes because of your interpretation of the current situation and that is 100% legitimate and informed. But don't go saying it's flawed because it doesn't leave wiggle room with 'maybes' and 'it depends.'
-
[spoiler]
Alright. We're a member of the UN. Fine. But we have our own system in the US. We don't jump to the call of the UN. We aren't its personal army. You don't live here so I can see why you'd say what you say. But the fact is, it isn't all milk and honey here in America. We can't afford another war, literally. We don't even have the money to pay for public schools. We're just racking up debt on a credit card. The last thing we need is more debt for another war instead of repairing our economy and country.
[/spoiler]
Agreed, you don't jump to the beck and call of the UN. In fact, you do the exact opposite in some cases, taking actions in situations where military intervention has not been sanctioned. That's not me bashing the US, that's just how things have panned out. The precedent has been set, America has been cited as the leader of the free world and has shown to everyone that they are willing to assist in the majority of cases where there is a benefit to the affected individual(s).
Financially I think we can agree you have the semblance of a point, but are being rather condescending in how you present it. People outside the US can have a pretty in depth understanding of the countries financial system and woes at present because it's quite well presented in the media and, in general conversation. Either way, the US' financial situation is acknowledged, but in attempting to resolve that you don't cold turkey; you tone things down, which is what has been going on for the past 5 or so years. No full blown military interventions, the down-scaling of the armed forces, cuts all over the place. Sure it won't stop you from going over your extended debt ceiling in October, but you're making Syria out to be the icing on the cake when in actuality there's other situations that have been brewing for years (15+) which have more impact than their current state of affairs.
[spoiler]And for the record, I am sick and tired PERSONALLY. My opinion doesn't reflect the justification of not wanting war for the 90%+ of Americans who don't want it. They're more concerned with a lot of the other reasons I mentioned (infrastructure, economy, etc). We can't afford it and shouldn't have to worry about affording it in the first place. Especially at the cost of the well being of more of our countrymen.
[/spoiler]
Then what? Your issue is more with the way in which America is perceived by the international community? Fact is, the only reason that America is where it is is due to the choices of its residents. It's all very well and good stating that you want change, but everything that you have presented so far is for the long term. There's been no consideration of the short term which will have a direct effect on how those long term goals are achieved, which is required if you want to throw any sort of solidity behind your stance on American foreign policy.
[spoiler]Also, the poll is flawed in your opinion. It is meant to be that way. It is meant to be simple. You answered yes because of your interpretation of the current situation and that is 100% legitimate and informed. But don't go saying it's flawed because it doesn't leave wiggle room with 'maybes' and 'it depends.'
[/spoiler]
Yet the maybes and it depends are exactly the things that Obama, Cameron etc are considering when they look at military intervention. Why do you not afford us the same opportunity?
-
Alright. We're a member of the UN. Fine. But we have our own system in the US. We don't jump to the call of the UN. We aren't its personal army. It comes to a vote, and the voters don't want it because they know how bad OUR situation is.
You do realise that other countries militaries will be involved if the UN decide to intervene, right?
The US might contribute the most in such a situation because they project so much power around the world, but don't think you're some lone warrior in this affair. Bringing all your assets home will not help your domestic troubles either, what are you going to do? Decommission half your fleet and have all that manpower suddenly looking for work?
I voted No because I don't know all the facts. These attacks could have come from either side and aiding the rebels who have dubious links to terrorist organisations seems like you'll be replacing one dictator for something worse.
-
@Sofia:
You're right, the U.S. has shown that and I really wish we didn't. Every time we intervene things don't really get better. It's what got us into this mess financially in the first place (on top of other things). And you're right, Syria isn't going to be the straw on the camel's back. But it's just...de ja vu. You'd think we'd learn lessons from Libya and such, but no. It's a small thing financially, you're right. But it's a start nonetheless to cease military intervention and sinking more money we don't have in the long run. Short term action now lays the foundation for long term action and policy in the future. Policy that doesn't involve running in and shooting stuff.
As for the poll, maybe doesn't really say anything. Might as well not answer. Like I said before. You saying yes based on your current understanding of the situation isn't wrong or whatever. It's your decision, informed, and researched, and it's completely legitimate. I'm not questioning WHY you'd say yes or no. I'm not saying present whatever evidence. Just based on what you know now, should or should we not attack?
Oh, also our Congress is on holiday and if the Administration launches an attack even WITH the UN's consent...that's a crime and he's in a potential load of trouble.
@Deadrow:
I know we wouldn't go it alone if it happened. Sorry if I didn't clarify that. It's clear that it's be a multinational effort (which sort of scares me if Russia and China decide to enforce their vote against action in Syria with their own 'toys'). But we'd still be sending our people and machines in, which costs money we don't have (which is something the Pentagon should be reminded of after buying MORE F-35 ENGINES).
Should we decommission ships and bases?...No. Should we tone down deployment and production of more expensive weapons? Yes. Use the money that'd go to another war with who knows what consequences and reinvest here at home.
-
tl;dr
It's pretty clear that your gripe is with the lack of fiscal responsibility that the US has had over the past couple of decades, and part of that has been contributed to by America's involvement in world affairs. That's something I can agree with, because it could have been handled better.
However.
What you need to remember is that there are currently very few countries that are in a position to actually assist in maintaining world order. That's something that America has been trying to fix (look at the amount of military aid you guys give to other countries, for better or worse). On the back of that, a lot of the countries that said military aid is going to are countries that only have issues due to the pretty awful handling of the breakdown of the British and French empires in the mid 20th century. Can you imagine what would happen if America pulled out of even a couple of those agreements without severely considering what the effects might be? The situation might turn into one where it becomes worse than it was before involvement.
Things take time. My suggestion to you would be to look at the current situation of the world stage, because there's a lot coming to head now that has been brewing for a long time. Base your opinion of how to proceed after taking that into consideration, because even though on the surface America isn't directly affected there's a lot of knock on effects there that will.
-
I suppose you're right. Your points are logical in their foresight. But still, aside from the fiscal issues, I don't want another war. Most of us here (U.S.) just don't want another gods' damned war if we can stay out of it. We just got too much going on here that needs dealt with.
This obviously isn't completely true and there's more to the situation than meets the eye, but it's like our government JUMPS to help the world but ignores the pleas and problems we have here. Yes our problems are no where near as bad as other countries and I'm grateful for it. But still, we DO have them. You'd think our electorate would deal with them. But no, they just launch wars and debate Obamacare for the 47th time.
-
I seriously doubt that Obama wants boots on the ground if he can help it. We're more likely to see something similar to Libya in terms of military intervention, although it's not clear at this stage who will bring the majority of the weight. The inherent assumption is the US will bring the main weight, and I haven't seen anything to dissuade that as yet, but one hopes that Obama can find a situation that is favorable for America considering current deployment.
-
Word in DC I've heard through the vine confirms what you say. However, naval units are already deployed there with cruise missiles, and you can bet a few drone wings are ready.
However, my big concerns are:
(1) Syria decides to lob chemical rockets at our boys and girls
(2) While pretty unlikely, Russia and China moving their own units to reinforce their votes against action should America, England, etc move in regardless of the security council's stance.
Again, the second concern is mostly unfounded. I don't think Russia and China would risk assets over Assad. BUT. If they do, and the attack commences, that's a very very big problem.
-
Russia's stance is more due to them being diametrically opposed to the majority of decisions the US makes. Sabre rattling has been par for the course since the end of the Cold War and definitely isn't going to change in the short term.
Countries like Syria are good for arms deals etc.
As for China, hmm, first I've heard of it. I really can't imagine them getting involved on their own though, and if it was the case that they did then war is...(and I'm immediately getting flashbacks to Malcolm Tucker here) foreseeable? Certainly a drastic shift to the political climate.
-
meanwhile, in Scotland, fatty Salmond is setting up to use the Syria situation as political capital in the independence argument.
Arguing that any action must wait until after the UN inspectors make a report, and that there has not been any evidence provided (to a provincial politician), that would justify action.
US and UK military intelligence would not be provided to someone like Salmond, as he has no relevance. Defence is a UK reserved matter, so the UK Prime Minister, the Defence Secretary, and a handful of others would have the evidence to make a decision, not a provincial politician.
And, to wait until the UN inspectors make a report, sends a signal that "It's OK to use chemical weapons, if you can game the inspectors into finding nothing".
Salmond is hoping that the UK and the US does something that has a poor outcome, so he can paint himself as being the voice of reason, and that's why Scotland should be independent. So an independent Scotland can sit by and do nothing, while UN inspectors struggle to find evidence, as tyrants destroy it before the inspectors can find anything. Arguing that "the international community must find consensus" and such, is to pass responsibility to someone else. Lacking the courage needed to make the hard decisions.
He wants UK and US servicemen, and even more Syrian civilians to die, so that he can win a trivial referendum.
Has a track record of it, arguing against things such as Kosovo and Libya, wanting the UN to agree to something, rather than NATO, so as to pass responsibility to someone else.
Also, the radio had a former adviser to one of the US secretaries of state, saying that he wished US Presidents didn't talk about "red lines" that cannot be crossed, because it always puts the US into a situation where it appears either uncaring, or unwilling to take action. When chemical weapon use is a "red line", then if nothing is done, the US looks unwilling to take action, that their words are meaningless.
Maybe the least worst option would be, not to target solely Assad's forces, but to target all sides. Anyone uses chemical weapons, they get shot. No taking sides.
-
I seriously doubt that Obama wants boots on the ground if he can help it. We're more likely to see something similar to Libya in terms of military intervention, although it's not clear at this stage who will bring the majority of the weight. The inherent assumption is the US will bring the main weight, and I haven't seen anything to dissuade that as yet, but one hopes that Obama can find a situation that is favorable for America considering current deployment.
So, Libya is an interesting reference because I think the majority of the world sees this as being similar and may not recognize the tough lessons learned from Libya that a Syrian Air Campaign would only amplify.
In the case of Libya, there was a large number of European strike aircraft/mission, but the bulk of the Command & Control, Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses, Intelligence-Reconnaissance-Surveillance (ISR), and eventually even the munitions the European aircraft carried was all supplied by the United States (as in bought using DoD funds). Then Sec Gates even called attention to this in his last visit to Europe.
As I have said, Syria is not Libya from an Air Campaign perspective. Syria has been building/operating a modern Integrated Air Defense System for years because of its conflicts with Israel and from watching the US dismantle the Iraqi IADS in 1990.
Oddly enough, this exact kind of Area Denial system is something the F-35 (F-22, and B-2) should be able to operate against in order to strike critical targets. The problem is that 1) we don't have enough F-35s yet, 2) the F-22 buy was cut from the original order of 350 to around 150, and 3) only around 20 B-2s were built and I think we have 19 still in service.
So, to effectively execute the Air Campaign, it means using increasingly aging aircraft (some from the 1970s) to dismantle an IADS that was designed to deal with them.
The pain of fighting two wars and then winning the peace for 10+ years is that the modernization efforts were largely ignored (and still are being ignored). Add to this Congressmen making sure pork-defense projects that the military wants to get rid of are kept funded and made law and the DoD can't even fix itself (despite its best efforts). On top of it all, we shutdown flying squadrons for 3-6 months due to Sequestration and are just now getting pilots up to flying status.
In other words, an Air Campaign can't be setup overnight by the US even if we wanted to.
I didn't vote in the poll. I really want to do something and if I could force increased diplomacy 18 months ago I would. Assad and the FSA could have brokered a peace, but we, the west, refused to step up and take action when it was needed.
-
[spoiler]
So, Libya is an interesting reference because I think the majority of the world sees this as being similar and may not recognize the tough lessons learned from Libya that a Syrian Air Campaign would only amplify.
In the case of Libya, there was a large number of European strike aircraft/mission, but the bulk of the Command & Control, Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses, Intelligence-Reconnaissance-Surveillance (ISR), and eventually even the munitions the European aircraft carried was all supplied by the United States (as in bought using DoD funds). Then Sec Gates even called attention to this in his last visit to Europe.
As I have said, Syria is not Libya from an Air Campaign perspective. Syria has been building/operating a modern Integrated Air Defense System for years because of its conflicts with Israel and from watching the US dismantle the Iraqi IADS in 1990.
Oddly enough, this exact kind of Area Denial system is something the F-35 (F-22, and B-2) should be able to operate against in order to strike critical targets. The problem is that 1) we don't have enough F-35s yet, 2) the F-22 buy was cut from the original order of 350 to around 150, and 3) only around 20 B-2s were built and I think we have 19 still in service.
So, to effectively execute the Air Campaign, it means using increasingly aging aircraft (some from the 1970s) to dismantle an IADS that was designed to deal with them.
The pain of fighting two wars and then winning the peace for 10+ years is that the modernization efforts were largely ignored (and still are being ignored). Add to this Congressmen making sure pork-defense projects that the military wants to get rid of are kept funded and made law and the DoD can't even fix itself (despite its best efforts). On top of it all, we shutdown flying squadrons for 3-6 months due to Sequestration and are just now getting pilots up to flying status.
In other words, an Air Campaign can't be setup overnight by the US even if we wanted to.
[/spoiler]
Definitely a valid point. I merely used Libya because it's the closest thing operationally to what could potentially happen with Syria.
The air defense is something that isn't particularly clear at the moment, at least to the general public. If Syria was a united country I think that you'd be absolutely right, slinging planes at it would be ill advised, especially considering the possible outcome. As it stands though there is confusion about how much of that network is currently operational, what with parts of the FSA holding the areas around some sites. All things considered, there might be potential avenues of attack available.
What concerns me more at this stage is Israel's call up of reservists. Considering Hezbollah's assistance to Assad's regime, and their...looser(?) morals in regards to international law, there's a chance that Israel could get involved. Considering their military partners, that may potentially drag the US in deeper than they would like to.
-
IADS in Syria is still extremely dated and does not match up well to US Naval Aircraft. Keep in mind that even the "dated" aircraft we fly are still 15 or so years old at the oldest, in the Navy. Most of the front lines targets will be hit with long range cruise missiles who fly too low for all but the most modern IADS, or Super Hornets, who aren't all that stealthy but will be more than able to remove threats. F-35 and F-22's might be the new and shiny, but F-117 are still in service, plus B-2's and others.
A flight of E/A-6B's would be able to remove much of the IADS with their electronics alone. HARM missiles/target prioritization on minimizing US casualties will make short work of any Anti-Air system. Losses will be had, but hardly to a high level because of the IADS systems in that country.
-
In equipment terms, the only systems which Syria has that raise my concerns are the S-300 (SA-10 Grumble) and Pantsir S1 (SA-22 Greyhound) systems; they're more or less designed to operate in concert with each other (the former is a long-range semi-mobile system while the latter is a highly-mobile short-range system explicitly designed to track low-observability aircraft and munitions). In more realistic terms, which will make or break it in my opinion is the quality and morale of operators on the Syrian side of things; supposedly Russia was supposed to train a bunch of Syrians air-defense teams, but they never really got around to it.
Another thing to consider is that if we want a truly "clean" campaign, simply bombing chemical weapons stashes and then walking away may not be a viable option.
Long, science explanation below; feel free to skip for tl;dr.
[spoiler]
Sarin, the said to be the regime's primary agent, can be a "binary" chemical agent in which two relatively safe precursor agents are mixed into the lethal agent by the spinning motion of a shot from a rifled artillery weapon or by angled blades on a rocket. However, it is also heavily used in a non-binary form, in which the final lethal agent is stored ready-for-use in the munition.
Of the pictures I have seen claimed to be Syrian chemical-carrying rockets, all seem to have fins projecting directly away from the sides - meaning, they couldn't be shot from an artillery tube or spun using those fins in flight. Now, while I am no military expert and fully admit I could me misjudging what I am looking at (or am only seeing part of the delivery system). Nonetheless, there is a fair chance that these shells contain the final agent, meaning that simply bombing them (and only destroying the casing) could simply spread that agent. Best-case scenario, the intense heat and pressure of the bombing ruins the compound. Average-case, the compounds are only thrown a short distance and you get a toxic 'pool' that can more easily be contained and remediated. Worst-case scenario, the explosions loft the compound high up where it can be dispersed by the wind.
[/spoiler]
tl;dr - There is reason to think that bombing a stockpile of Syria's chemical weapons could produce a lethal spreading cloud. Alternatives would be to try to secure and remove the stashes using actual troops, to try to secure and destroy the stashes using specialized munitions carried by troops, or to use high-temperature weapons such as incendiaries or fuel-air explosives.
-
IADS in Syria is still extremely dated and does not match up well to US Naval Aircraft. Keep in mind that even the "dated" aircraft we fly are still 15 or so years old at the oldest, in the Navy. Most of the front lines targets will be hit with long range cruise missiles who fly too low for all but the most modern IADS, or Super Hornets, who aren't all that stealthy but will be more than able to remove threats. F-35 and F-22's might be the new and shiny, but F-117 are still in service, plus B-2's and others.
A flight of E/A-6B's would be able to remove much of the IADS with their electronics alone. HARM missiles/target prioritization on minimizing US casualties will make short work of any Anti-Air system. Losses will be had, but hardly to a high level because of the IADS systems in that country.
The Syrians have been buying more Russia built IADS equipment. And shot down a Turkish RF-4 last June. (http://defensetech.org/2012/06/28/what-do-we-know-about-syrias-air-defenses/) They aren't fielding just SA-2s, they are fielding SA-22s.
The E/A-6B airframe was last built in 1991 (22 years ago), granted the EW package has been continuously upgraded. Even with F/A-18E Growlers there is capability, doesn't mean it will be easy. The IADS targeting is complicated by the packages on Prowler and Growler, but that doesn't mean we will easily achieve Air Superiority. The point is that Syria is not Libya and they have a more modern IADS.
This also doesn't include any discussion of required stand-off distance for the carrier, tankers, etc in order to make the necessary strikes and the required local air dominance to have tankers, AWACs, etc on station to enable those strike missions. It takes more than strike fighters to conduct an offensive Air Campaign.
In Desert Storm, the USAF learned the hard-way about attacking heavily defended targets. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Package_Q_Strike) The USN and USAF have made upgrades, but we also haven't gone up against a country with an IADS since Kosovo. (Iraqi Freedom had over a decade of air campaign prep work in the form of Northern and Southern Watch.)
F-117s was retired in 2008 and Hollaman AFB got F-22's to "replace" them.
If the only objective is a "statement" and not actually achieving Air Superiority, then cruise missiles are fine. It will however be unlikely to help the FSA long term, if that is the goal.
-
Interesting breakdown with pictures on imgur (http://imgur.com/gallery/khRcU)
Maybe the least worst option would be, not to target solely Assad's forces, but to target all sides. Anyone uses chemical weapons, they get shot. No taking sides.
Seems fair to me. I find it interesting though, that the West is not referencing 'supporting the rebels' with regards to potential air strikes. I think they're aware the public has caught onto the fact that the rebels are not exactly white knights.
-
Apparently Russia has sent 12 ships to its base in Syria and also intends to fulfill its sale of S-300 air defense systems.
http://www.timesofisrael.com/russia-sends-at-least-12-warships-to-syria/
-
The Onion, as always, sums it up very well.
http://www.theonion.com/articles/so-whats-it-going-to-be,33662/?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=SocialMarketing&utm_campaign=LinkPreview:1:Default
-
The Onion, as always, sums it up very well.
http://www.theonion.com/articles/so-whats-it-going-to-be,33662/?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=SocialMarketing&utm_campaign=LinkPreview:1:Default
For being a satirical journalistic venture, they hit the nose on the head.
Although, I think we, the United States, may have an out.
you would probably lose any of your remaining moral high ground on the world stage and make everything from the Geneva Conventions to America’s reputation as a beacon for freedom and democracy around the world look like a complete sham.
The option to give up the moral high ground and the beacon of freedom and democracy mantle we hold to so dearly.
Given everything we have said in this thread and our on-going weekly revelations of more "police-state" like secret policies it may just be time to yield it and turn the beacon off for a while until we get our own shit in order.
Being the beacon just gets us more enemies and we have demonstrated some decent hypocrisy in the past 10 years.
Germany and the Nordic countries, tag, your it. Your turn to be the beacon of freedom, democracy, etc. You seem to have your shit together.
-
I strongly disagree with the idea that we have some moral obligation to either support the UN, or that we have an obligation to maintain peace around the world. Strictly speaking, I don't see that there is any reason to suspect that we do. I don't recall - and I speak somewhat tongue-in-cheek :P - when the United States or some other country was handed the Commandments of International Moral Obligation, but I suspect that I wouldn't find them convincing anyway.
But, that said, I don't recall the United States signing anything that requires us to protect anyone not in NATO, and only then if we are attacked. Personally, I think we should also withdraw from NATO. If, for some insane reason, Putin decided that he wanted to own Europe all the way to the Atlantic (a proposition I highly doubt), the Europeans can pay to stop it themselves. And if we get into a scuffle with North Korea, why drag Europe into a war they neither need nor want? But this is a rabbit trail. Suffice it to say that we are not obligated by any treaties I know of to start killing Syrians. And, even if we were, countries withdraw from agreements all the time.
Most of the arguments for intervention in Syria seem to be moral in nature, to wit, that we are obligated to attack and kill people to prevent them from doing harm to others. Why we are so obligated has not been, I think, adequately explained. The argument that we are our brother's keeper, logically extended, results in the premise that one should annihilate one's own welfare to aid another. Countries which adopted such a policy, economically or militarily, could not long exist.
Nor, does it appear, that such intervention is practical. Given Orange's statements, and the fact that Russia appears to be using Syria as a means for possibly testing out their military hardware on ours, we would be foolhardy to think that we could fix everything with a few days of bombing. Moreover, even if we did, it isn't Assad who is the greatest long term threat to us. By aiding the rebels, we would almost certainly be sharpening a knife for the throats of our own civilians, on down the line.
Lastly, interventions have not historically been a good bet. Gulf War 1 ended with Saddam preparing to embark on a gassing of the Kurds. Our defense of the Kuwaitis and the Saudis had pretty much zero effect on our standing in the Middle East, unless you count the fact that our presence on the Arabian Peninsula helped inflame radicals. Our aid to the Afghans during the Soviet invasion pretty much resulted in the radicals there merely marking us down as the second target to hit. We aided in the Libyan revolution, only to have our embassy attacked and the brother party of the Muslim Brotherhood become the second most powerful political body in the country. Nor did our actions in Bosnia and Kosovo result in much for us besides pissing off the Kurds and Russians in a major way. Our best-outcome situation in Afghanistan will be an oppressive Islamic theocratic demi-democracy, and while the Iraqis couldn't wait to be rid of Saddam, they also spared almost no time before attacking us, and, to a much greater degree, each other.
There is something strange about the idea that one can get people to think our way if we just shoot a few of them. We certainly haven't changed the minds of North Koreans, we certainly didn't bring democracy to Vietnam, and the Somalia intervention only succeeded in wasting a vast amount of money and some American lives. Of the few times when intervention has succeeded, such as in World War 2, we have found it necessary to kill millions before we were finally able to change cultures and minds. And a good portion of Japan is still trying to argue that it was our fault.
The United States has no obligation to help others in the world. It lacks the ability to easily address the problem in any case, and, even if it did, the results would probably be bad for the United States, and quite possibly the people in Syria. The United States should effect no action towards Syria.
-
^^^^^^^^^^
You want more security checks at the airport, then by all means attack Syria.
Incidentally, there is a growing chance that the UK parliament will not vote in favour of intervention. Not possible to ignore the electorate in a democracy I suppose.
-
I strongly disagree with the idea that we have some moral obligation to either support the UN, or that we have an obligation to maintain peace around the world. Strictly speaking, I don't see that there is any reason to suspect that we do. I don't recall - and I speak somewhat tongue-in-cheek :P - when the United States or some other country was handed the Commandments of International Moral Obligation, but I suspect that I wouldn't find them convincing anyway.
But, that said, I don't recall the United States signing anything that requires us to protect anyone not in NATO, and only then if we are attacked. Personally, I think we should also withdraw from NATO. If, for some insane reason, Putin decided that he wanted to own Europe all the way to the Atlantic (a proposition I highly doubt), the Europeans can pay to stop it themselves. And if we get into a scuffle with North Korea, why drag Europe into a war they neither need nor want? But this is a rabbit trail. Suffice it to say that we are not obligated by any treaties I know of to start killing Syrians. And, even if we were, countries withdraw from agreements all the time.
The issue I have with this attitude is that I think as human beings, we have a responsibility to each other. Is there any objective moral reason to do it? No, but there's no objective moral anything. Morals are subjective, and I think the 'deal with your own problems' is selfish and harmful to us. We should care. When people are suffering and dying for any reason, that shouldn't be something we just shrug off.
That said, all of this:
Nor, does it appear, that such intervention is practical. Given Orange's statements, and the fact that Russia appears to be using Syria as a means for possibly testing out their military hardware on ours, we would be foolhardy to think that we could fix everything with a few days of bombing. Moreover, even if we did, it isn't Assad who is the greatest long term threat to us. By aiding the rebels, we would almost certainly be sharpening a knife for the throats of our own civilians, on down the line.
Lastly, interventions have not historically been a good bet. Gulf War 1 ended with Saddam preparing to embark on a gassing of the Kurds. Our defense of the Kuwaitis and the Saudis had pretty much zero effect on our standing in the Middle East, unless you count the fact that our presence on the Arabian Peninsula helped inflame radicals. Our aid to the Afghans during the Soviet invasion pretty much resulted in the radicals there merely marking us down as the second target to hit. We aided in the Libyan revolution, only to have our embassy attacked and the brother party of the Muslim Brotherhood become the second most powerful political body in the country. Nor did our actions in Bosnia and Kosovo result in much for us besides pissing off the Kurds and Russians in a major way. Our best-outcome situation in Afghanistan will be an oppressive Islamic theocratic demi-democracy, and while the Iraqis couldn't wait to be rid of Saddam, they also spared almost no time before attacking us, and, to a much greater degree, each other.
There is something strange about the idea that one can get people to think our way if we just shoot a few of them. We certainly haven't changed the minds of North Koreans, we certainly didn't bring democracy to Vietnam, and the Somalia intervention only succeeded in wasting a vast amount of money and some American lives. Of the few times when intervention has succeeded, such as in World War 2, we have found it necessary to kill millions before we were finally able to change cultures and minds. And a good portion of Japan is still trying to argue that it was our fault.
Is all very true. None of our interventionist policies have worked very well, and I'd say we have fairly conclusive evidence that military intervention would fail to have the desired effects. We've seen, historically, how military intervention turns out for us, and it doesn't seem like a good idea at all.
-
Germany ? The beacon of ... what ? Well, why not, but putting them in the same bag than nordic countries sounds completely silly to me, considering that they do not fare a lot better than most of Europe atm, added to the fact that they are far from being a social democratic state like the latter.
-
We are trying to impose "western" ideals on countries that are, not only, not western countries but also devout anti-western 'culture' countries. In every recent case stated, from Korea all the way through to Afghanistan, the culture barrier and lifestyle of the people there is wholly different from what western norms are.
You have to go back almost pre-Crusades to find it's start where pompous European society felt that it had the one true religion while possibly just a pompous mid-east society felt that it's was the truth. Both have tenants that are similar but differ in more ways than can be easily reconciled. In any case, the West has prospered and now thinks that it will be simple to just display how great democracy is, and since our system is "So much better"
I don't see violence fixing any issues, but the only other thing to do, which "we" are rather good at by the way, is sit back and let people kill each other. To our moral responsibilities as human beings, "we" all (myself included, as well as the US, UK, European countries in general, Russia, China, etc) seem pretty adept at ignoring those on a day to day basis unless it is directly and repeatedly, some might even say blatantly or sensationally, brought to our attention through mass media. Even when it is and it's in the scale of hundreds of thousands of deaths, genocide, whatever, the outrage lasts, for most, only as long as the news coverage.
Before I can condone going into a place like this where we will do little to no good and probably more harm than good, we should figure out if we have the motivation to actually do something. We don't.
The UN is a complete joke. Every member of the security council abuses their seat of power or outright ignores the UN decree's. USA, UK, China, Russia, and hell, even the French use their vote as a bludgeoning tool, and when even that fails, they do whatever the hell they want to anyways. Out of those members I would say the UK and French are the least abusers of their spots, while Russia, China and the US are the lead abusers and also the most powerful nations at the table. Whole thing is a farce of epic bureaucracy. Countries used to be led by great men of morals, almost world wide. Where the crazy leaders where the ones who shit on their people. Now countries are led by those people who are in power and want to stay in power. It's pretty gross. Sorry for the rant.
-
I think there should be a distinction made between the Government and the Legislature. Watching BBC Parliament, all of our arguments, believe it or not, have been up by a variety of MPs. The British Parliament is fully aware of the "shades of grey" in the equation, acknowledging the Hezbollah-supporting Assad regime and the AlQaeda-supported rebel army. Liam Fox was the one to do this.
The house seems to agree on some of action, but not necessarily military. They are discussing the consequences of letting the use of chemical weapons slide from the perspective of international law, in that doing nothing may set a precedent as dangerous as doing something.
-
Germany ? The beacon of ... what ? Well, why not, but putting them in the same bag than nordic countries sounds completely silly to me, considering that they do not fare a lot better than most of Europe atm, added to the fact that they are far from being a social democratic state like the latter.
I smelled sarcasm in orange's comment there, myself.
I have mixed feelings on the matter and haven't voted as a result.
Neither side in Syria is 'good'. They're both doing horrible things, and regular people are getting caught in the crossfire. Obviously we shouldn't really let the use of chemical weapons (or nuclear, or w/e else) slide, regardless of who's using them.
On top of that, whichever side 'wins' it doesn't really matter - it's going to be bad for the Syrians in the short term, and we sure as hell won't benefit from either side, if I understand the situation right. Assad's regime is buddy-buddy with people who we're already hostile with, and the opposition is partially funded/trained by other people we hate even more.
So, uh, yeah. Damned if we do, damned if we don't.
-
Germany ? The beacon of ... what ? Well, why not, but putting them in the same bag than nordic countries sounds completely silly to me, considering that they do not fare a lot better than most of Europe atm, added to the fact that they are far from being a social democratic state like the latter.
I smelled sarcasm in orange's comment there, myself.
There is some, sarcasm is a natural mode of communication for me. However, in every joke there is a bit of truth. From my perspective, Germany and the Nordic countries both generally have their act together. Perhaps it should just be one or the other.
My main point was that there is a drive in some circles for the US to hold onto the mantle, when in the aggregate it can be hard to argue that the beacon is still lit. If it is, the foundation of the lighthouse it is on is crumbling, as in their are gaping structural holes. I think it may be time to pass the torch, problem is that no one else seems willing to take it...
-
Parliament
The use of chemical weapons was indeed a crime against all of humanity. But by firing one missile we are involving ourselves in a civil war on the side of a fractured opposition which includes people with proud link to Al Qaeda. By striking now, without clear cause and purpose, we risk consequences that we have not even thought of: this is a case of hit – and then hope."
-
As per Parliament's vote, there will be no British military intervention in Syria.
An outstanding session in Parliament, highly academic and insightful speeches from all parties. The Internet likes to think it knows more than politicians; I say they're wrong. Syria aside, this is important for maintaining democratic legitimacy in the UK, for the electorate is very sharply against intervention.
-
As per Parliament's vote, there will be no British military intervention in Syria.
An outstanding session in Parliament, highly academic and insightful speeches from all parties. The Internet likes to think it knows more than politicians; I say they're wrong. Syria aside, this is important for maintaining democratic legitimacy in the UK, for the electorate is very sharply against intervention.
I think the decision was important. It sends a clear message to President Obama that should the US take action, it is doing so without its closest ally.
The "allies" that support taking action are pointedly Sunni Arab states, who are also funding Al Qaeda in Syria, while Iran has been supporting the Shia Assad regime. Picking sides in an ancient religious conflict is just a bad idea. The secularist are consistently sidelined in the Mid-East. :(
As for the intelligence of politicians: while you may be right about the UK, I think the "race" is much closer between the Internet and US Politicians. :bash:
-
As per Parliament's vote, there will be no British military intervention in Syria.
An outstanding session in Parliament, highly academic and insightful speeches from all parties. The Internet likes to think it knows more than politicians; I say they're wrong. Syria aside, this is important for maintaining democratic legitimacy in the UK, for the electorate is very sharply against intervention.
I can only hope we do not.
-
Who other then the US government, and specifically the government, actually thinks this is a good idea?
-
Who other then the US government, and specifically the government, actually thinks this is a good idea?
I would say the US government actually does not think this is a good idea. There are some Representatives and Senators who have been arguing to do something since it started (McCain), but the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the President's chief military adviser, has said multiple times it is a bad idea for multiple reasons. (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/29/general-martin-dempsey-obama-syria)
Syria today is not about choosing between two sides but rather about choosing one among many sides. It is my belief that the side we choose must be ready to promote their interests and ours when the balance shifts in their favor. Today, they are not.
-
We are trying to impose "western" ideals on countries that are, not only, not western countries but also devout anti-western 'culture' countries. In every recent case stated, from Korea all the way through to Afghanistan, the culture barrier and lifestyle of the people there is wholly different from what western norms are.
You have to go back almost pre-Crusades to find it's start where pompous European society felt that it had the one true religion while possibly just a pompous mid-east society felt that it's was the truth. Both have tenants that are similar but differ in more ways than can be easily reconciled. In any case, the West has prospered and now thinks that it will be simple to just display how great democracy is, and since our system is "So much better"
The thing is though, is that some cultures are just better. Rule of law is better then autocracy and theocracy. Rights for women and minorities is better then treating them like shit. Freedom of speech is better then having state sanctioned limitations on speech. Bodily autonomy and the de-legitimization of slavery are better then the alternative. I'm not saying western culture is perfect, far from it, we are absolutely full of problems, corruption and environmental destruction being the biggest, but there is a lot we get right, and I think its very disingenuous to to go, 'well they're just different' because by that same argument you could have said that slave holders were 'just different' and that we have to let them keep slaves because 'its just part of their culture'. No. There is different, and there is actively harming others.
I don't see violence fixing any issues, but the only other thing to do, which "we" are rather good at by the way, is sit back and let people kill each other. To our moral responsibilities as human beings, "we" all (myself included, as well as the US, UK, European countries in general, Russia, China, etc) seem pretty adept at ignoring those on a day to day basis unless it is directly and repeatedly, some might even say blatantly or sensationally, brought to our attention through mass media. Even when it is and it's in the scale of hundreds of thousands of deaths, genocide, whatever, the outrage lasts, for most, only as long as the news coverage.
I think we definitely have options beyond inflicting violence and ignoring violence. Violence should be an absolute last resort, not the go to for all attempts to create change. And yes, culturally we have gotten very good at not paying attention. Its Brave New World playing out in front of us with Snookie and Miley Cyrus twerking. We have a lot of growing up to do as a species, and we're going to have to start doing it quickly. The world is going to change faster then I think any of us really expect or can keep up with fully.
-
The thing is though, is that some cultures are just better. Rule of law is better then autocracy and theocracy. Rights for women and minorities is better then treating them like shit. Freedom of speech is better then having state sanctioned limitations on speech. Bodily autonomy and the de-legitimization of slavery are better then the alternative. I'm not saying western culture is perfect, far from it, we are absolutely full of problems, corruption and environmental destruction being the biggest, but there is a lot we get right, and I think its very disingenuous to to go, 'well they're just different' because by that same argument you could have said that slave holders were 'just different' and that we have to let them keep slaves because 'its just part of their culture'. No. There is different, and there is actively harming others.
This sounds like objective morality. As does saying that we have a moral obligation to help someone.
Actually, I do believe that there are moral goals, so to speak, and objective ones at that. I simply don't think that a belief in moral obligation to positive actions (as opposed to refraining from actions) can be reasoned out to its logical conclusion without demonstrating that such obligations would render one essentially unable to survive.
Suppose that I were to assume that I have a moral obligation - that is to say, a precept which overrides all other behavior - to do my best to prevent other human beings from starving to death. If this were the case, I could hardly justify spending a cent more than necessary on myself, all other proceeds going to others who are hungry. To do otherwise would be to uphold my own pleasure as more important than the moral obligation to try to keep other human beings from starving to death.
That human beings will not do this is obvious. Nor, in the long term, could they do this, especially considering the free rider problem. A moral precept which is neither possible nor useful isn't a moral precept, it's simply a tool for causing unreasonable guilt. And such an obligation can't be said to be something that comes into existence given any particular number of individuals, either. None of them in particular can be bound to it, and therefore none in aggregate.
Even if I could be assured of a perfectly wonderful result for Syria, I would not have an obligation to personally go over there and risk my life fighting for the FSA. Nor would I and two or five of my friends. Nor would every American in my state. Nor would all of us Americans put together. And if intervention in the affairs of other countries was a moral obligation, we would all be obligated to intervene not only in Syria, but also in any country that behaved like Syria. This is unreasonable.
-
“The United States can always be relied upon to do the right thing — having first exhausted all possible alternatives.”
That said, I don't think that a moral obligation needs to be framed - or should be framed - by necessity as "a precept which overrides all other behavior". One shouldn't put too much of restraint on that, else one will by necessity end up with disfunctional morals. A moral obligation can be weaker than that, and the obligation should be in proportion to the value it's connected to.
Also, even if we constrain moral obligation like that: The fact that human beings won't in most cases behave like the moral obligation does, doesn't devalue the moral obligation. It'd be a fallacy to say that what ought to be needs to be. As there are some poeople who give everything they don't necessarily need even such a constrained concept of the moral obligation to prevent others from starving is possible to fullfill. So, the argument that the moral percept isn't possibly fulfillable has no traction. That it isn't particularly useful is more a symptom of unreasonably constraining what a moral obligation is.
-
We are trying to impose "western" ideals on countries that are, not only, not western countries but also devout anti-western 'culture' countries. In every recent case stated, from Korea all the way through to Afghanistan, the culture barrier and lifestyle of the people there is wholly different from what western norms are.
You have to go back almost pre-Crusades to find it's start where pompous European society felt that it had the one true religion while possibly just a pompous mid-east society felt that it's was the truth. Both have tenants that are similar but differ in more ways than can be easily reconciled. In any case, the West has prospered and now thinks that it will be simple to just display how great democracy is, and since our system is "So much better"
The thing is though, is that some cultures are just better. Rule of law is better then autocracy and theocracy. Rights for women and minorities is better then treating them like shit. Freedom of speech is better then having state sanctioned limitations on speech. Bodily autonomy and the de-legitimization of slavery are better then the alternative. I'm not saying western culture is perfect, far from it, we are absolutely full of problems, corruption and environmental destruction being the biggest, but there is a lot we get right, and I think its very disingenuous to to go, 'well they're just different' because by that same argument you could have said that slave holders were 'just different' and that we have to let them keep slaves because 'its just part of their culture'. No. There is different, and there is actively harming others.
I'd be careful about mixing up 'culture', 'politics' and 'social freedom' there. Slavery, racism, sexism etc. are things that we can all agree are bad. But those are closer to the topic of 'social freedom' rather than the other two, and culture and politics are a different kettle of fish.
The problem is, I'm not sure we can objectively say that western democracy is 'good'. No political philosopher in history has ever proposed the system that we currently have. We go around preaching and spreading the stuff, and in just about every case of note you care to mention, it hasn't worked. Egypt, one of the most westernised countries in the Arab bloc, has taken democracy and then failed to understand it. Democracy is not a magical cure-all that will turn a country into a happy free place. Doubly so if the inherent concepts are not present in the local culture. If you read between the lines of democratic experiments in the region, it seems like everyone is going along with it and happy that they get to choose, but the moment the decision's been made and things are running, suddenly it reverts to how things used to be in mindset.
The 'Arab spring' was not, in my opinion, a grand outcry for democracy. It was a sudden, grand reaction to corruption and abuse of social freedom, and the assumption everyone made, including those doing the rebelling, was that democracy was the answer. I'm not convinced it was.
-
Yeah, considering Western culture has practiced racism, slavery, misogyny and such things in its past and continues to do so in certain quarters, I can't see how it can be objectively argued to be superior.
-
Who other then the US government, and specifically the government, actually thinks this is a good idea?
France government, as weird as it sounds. Only the government though, since most of all the other political parties are opposed to it.
Not the public opinion though, I think, even if they are really quiet, or that medias do not speak a lot about that particular point.
-
Before I address the human morality debate, this just in:
Senate and Congress spam Obama's email/snail mail box with the following:
"Don't you dare act without our vote, mu fugga."
I'm serious. Word is spreading and news has confirmed that the on-holiday senators/congressmen are demanding Obama not even consider acting until everyone else is back. Oddly enough, they're 100% right. I've had my gripes with both groups and their non-action in favor of bullshit politics, but they're right. If the President acts without a vote or discussion, he's gonna have a bad time.
-
Before I address the human morality debate, this just in:
Senate and Congress spam Obama's email/snail mail box with the following:
"Don't you dare act without our vote, mu fugga."
I'm serious. Word is spreading and news has confirmed that the on-holiday senators/congressmen are demanding Obama not even consider acting until everyone else is back. Oddly enough, they're 100% right. I've had my gripes with both groups and their non-action in favor of bullshit politics, but they're right. If the President acts without a vote or discussion, he's gonna have a bad time.
Where were these assholes' spines back in 2003?
Not that I disagree with them. It just annoys me to see the way they'll treat Obama after demanding such fealty to Bush.
Of course, if congress is demanding any say in how we deal with Syria, then nothing is going to happen. While I don't like that option, it's probably better than the alternatives. And if it gives Obama an out from his "red line" stupidity, all the better.
-
Where were these assholes' spines back in 2003?
It is quite possible that that is what gave them spines.
-
Where were these assholes' spines back in 2003?
It is quite possible that that is what gave them spines.
And some of them (fiscal conservatives, ie Tea Party) were not there.
-
The west considers those things to be bad (slavery, sexism, etc), but that doesn't mean that other cultures don't feel differently about those items. I find the biggest issue to be that regardless of the freedom that we try to give the people in that region by stepping in and "saving them" they still are going to choose to 'vote' whatever way their culture tells them to. Change in those countries has to happen from inside, not outside in my opinion. Is it horrible that gas was used on civillians, YES, but it's not the first or the last time it's happened, we are just being told that it's something that we should care about by mass media.
I want to talk about actual social change in the US. The US didn't give women the right to vote because some other country said "gee you should do this, let me show you how." Women's Suffrage was responsible for the change. Hell, womens rights are FAR from complete in the US, as are the rights of minorities, disabled, or LBGT. I'm lucky that I am a white male in the US, at least most of my rights are still intact by virtue of my sex and skin color. Which isn't right either, but it is the truth. None of our major rights "breakthroughs" were either the firsts of their kinds (worldwide) NOR caused by some other country coming in and saving us from ourselves, it was by in large caused by sometimes peaceful and sometimes militant movements, of the people, demanding and then making things change. Is this the case with the "rebels" in Syria, perhaps, but then is it our responsibility to try to quell the rebels in order to establish a "more better" government by our standards? I don't think so.
Same thing applies to other countries. No amount of going into a country and saying in definitive terms. "Women/blacks/whatever are equal because we say so" actually MAKES it true. We are fortunate the have had, in the past, a responsible government who at the time of these movements was able to react properly from our current standards. How much different would the US be today if the Confederacy had either won the Civil War or at least independence? I'd say that things would be very different in the south at the very least. Is that right or okay, probably not, but just going in and decreeing equal rights hasn't worked so stunningly well in our OWN country, what makes it possible to go into another country and try the same crap?
Here is what I find the most scary. As a former Sailor in the US Navy, there were a whole subset of regulations where I could disobey what I will classify as "stupid" or Immoral orders given to me by officers. What's terrifying is that there are people out there who for whatever reason, and I am sure they feel they are doing the right thing in their own way, feel it is okay to attack and kill civilians when ordered to. I hope that I was never that brainwashed, I like to think I wasn't, but I was never in direct combat for months/years on end fighting insurgents. That's just terrifying to think about, being given an order to fire chemical/bio weapons on children, families. :cry:
Back to the actual topic, I don't think the US has any reason to go into Syria worth a damn to put our son's, brothers, Daughters, Fathers, Mothers, uncles, Aunts, Grandchildren in harm's way for another war with no definable end or achievement that isn't a total straw-man.
-
the reason the USA is almost always the major element in any kind of "world policeman" role, is because of the capabilities of the USN, and the USAF, in terms of being able to move large amounts of people and equipment around the world, in short timescales.
A Carrier task group can be (almost) anywhere in the world within a few weeks. Or days if it is close by.
Other countries just do not have the logistic ability to do things in a timely manner. And as long as the US does, then other countries are unlikely to change that situation.
-
Yeah, considering Western culture has practiced racism, slavery, misogyny and such things in its past and continues to do so in certain quarters, I can't see how it can be objectively argued to be superior.
Even though humanity, in general, continues to get sick, it can be argued that human's perspective that being healthy is superior to being sick is entirely objective, rational, and non-hypocritical. Similarly, if we were all always healthy, and had the symptoms of being sick described to us, we would be justified in finding our own condition to be better.
Western culture, today, and as it is typically defined, is perhaps not in and of itself superior. However, the concept which is being discussed, which is the humanistic, liberal subset of western culture, is objectively better. It is objectively better insofar as such things as equality, democracy, and etc tend to, on average, reduce conditions and situations which we consider "bad".
It is my opinion, for example, that one can match this sort of western culture, that is to say, the sort most people tend to think of when they speak of "western culture" up against other cultures and decide which results in the fewest harms. I do think that there is something to be said, for example, in western culture not condoning the stoning/hanging of gays and lesbians, unlike, say, religiously fundamentalist cultures. There's no real societal need that brutally killing gays and lesbians, and, by the moral code I believe to be objectively obtainable, not killing them is morally better.
Of course, it's probably wise to consider the fact that western culture is not monolithic. Southern Alabama culture in America, for example, is not as good for people as, say, Denmarkian or Californian-San-Francisco culture. How can I say this? Well, if nothing else, the food is more likely to give you a heart attack. And that's just one physically obvious sign. And cultures change through time - racism was much more endemic in the west than it is now, and it continues to decline. Will it ever disappear? Who knows. But saying that it was racist does not change the fact that some places are nearly equal now.
TL:DR - you really can judge that some cultures are better than others, based on objective statistics (related to cultural practices) and human health and well-being.
-
Yeah, considering Western culture has practiced racism, slavery, misogyny and such things in its past and continues to do so in certain quarters, I can't see how it can be objectively argued to be superior.
Even though humanity, in general, continues to get sick, it can be argued that human's perspective that being healthy is superior to being sick is entirely objective, rational, and non-hypocritical. Similarly, if we were all always healthy, and had the symptoms of being sick described to us, we would be justified in finding our own condition to be better.
Western culture, today, and as it is typically defined, is perhaps not in and of itself superior. However, the concept which is being discussed, which is the humanistic, liberal subset of western culture, is objectively better. It is objectively better insofar as such things as equality, democracy, and etc tend to, on average, reduce conditions and situations which we consider "bad".
It is my opinion, for example, that one can match this sort of western culture, that is to say, the sort most people tend to think of when they speak of "western culture" up against other cultures and decide which results in the fewest harms. I do think that there is something to be said, for example, in western culture not condoning the stoning/hanging of gays and lesbians, unlike, say, religiously fundamentalist cultures. There's no real societal need that brutally killing gays and lesbians, and, by the moral code I believe to be objectively obtainable, not killing them is morally better.
Of course, it's probably wise to consider the fact that western culture is not monolithic. Southern Alabama culture in America, for example, is not as good for people as, say, Denmarkian or Californian-San-Francisco culture. How can I say this? Well, if nothing else, the food is more likely to give you a heart attack. And that's just one physically obvious sign. And cultures change through time - racism was much more endemic in the west than it is now, and it continues to decline. Will it ever disappear? Who knows. But saying that it was racist does not change the fact that some places are nearly equal now.
TL:DR - you really can judge that some cultures are better than others, based on objective statistics (related to cultural practices) and human health and well-being.
Yeah all of this.
-
Charlie Stross has some interesting things to say on this subject (http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2013/08/on-syria.html#more).
The comments are worth a look as well.
-
That said, I don't think that a moral obligation needs to be framed - or should be framed - by necessity as "a precept which overrides all other behavior". One shouldn't put too much of restraint on that, else one will by necessity end up with disfunctional morals. A moral obligation can be weaker than that, and the obligation should be in proportion to the value it's connected to.
Also, even if we constrain moral obligation like that: The fact that human beings won't in most cases behave like the moral obligation does, doesn't devalue the moral obligation. It'd be a fallacy to say that what ought to be needs to be. As there are some poeople who give everything they don't necessarily need even such a constrained concept of the moral obligation to prevent others from starving is possible to fullfill. So, the argument that the moral percept isn't possibly fulfillable has no traction. That it isn't particularly useful is more a symptom of unreasonably constraining what a moral obligation is.
Two things.
First, by definition, a moral obligation is a demand to put aside other priorities to effect some action. It isn't a requirement to refrain from action, or to possibly take action, it is imperative, i.e., obligatory. If it isn't obligatory, than it isn't a moral obligation, is it?
It is certainly possible to uphold varieties of moral values or goals, but these things are, by necessity, somewhat looser than obligations. For example, I could hold the moral goal of seeing people not starve to death, but that does not obligate me to a particular action. It merely means that, of the several goals I have, I will not act in such a way as to make starvation more likely. It may mean that I act positively to end starvation. But because it is a goal, rather than an obligation, I am not forced to devote all ends towards ending starvation.
Second, the fact that some people can act in such a way as to fulfill an obligation does not mean that said obligation is a reasonable creation. It is true that a person can act to devote themselves entirely to the welfare of others. The difficulty with this arises when we examine the results of everyone living up to this moral obligation. If most people were to be devoted to the welfare of others, vast inefficiencies would form (you don't know what is good for me as much as I do), free riding would become the optimal survival strategy, and trade, capitalism, and technological progress would grind to a very rapid stop. If mankind continued to follow this "moral obligation", the only people left would be those who refused to go along with it. The obligation would self-annihilate. Actually, when we have tried to implement obligations like this, the societies tended to grind to a halt a long time before that.
Now, one can make the argument that morality has nothing to do with practicality. Perhaps so. But if it is so, then so much the worse for morality. If behaving practically, rather than morally, makes us all better off, wealthier, healthier, and etc, then there is no reason to be moral. Or, to put it otherwise, morality is only as useful insofar as it makes our lives better. To wit, perhaps it is immoral to tell any lie, as in the categorical imperative, but if I am hiding Jews in the basement, and Nazis are knocking on the door, then the categorical imperative can take a long fucking hike.
I am not very empathetic. Actually, I may not be, at all, since I'm not sure what empathy should be. Perhaps then, I am missing some key component of moral decision making. But it seems to me that, if one wants to consider matters of morality, one should not start with moral rules and work up to what we should do, but, rather, discard our impulses, consider what works best to create a better world with less suffering, and then construct moral rules from that. In the same way that we understand medical science, originating our theories on the basis of what is best for the patients (i.e., all of us) and then creating goals and rules for general behavior from there. That is understandable, objective, rational, and, hopefully, more workable.
-
Yeah, considering Western culture has practiced racism, slavery, misogyny and such things in its past and continues to do so in certain quarters, I can't see how it can be objectively argued to be superior.
See that Saede there with her freedom to not get kneecapped and dragged away by government thugs for the crime of being? That's why we're better.
Because we still fuck up, both individually and corporately, but our system can change for the better and is doing so.
-
This attitude of "that's why we're better" is precisely the reason why these geopolitical fault lines are emerging.
If people overcame their arrogance in this thread and actually read up on these cultures, rather than relying on demagoguery they read on reddit or tumblr, they will learn that hateful behavior in these other societies stem from ignorance and poor education rather than cultural prerogative.
Go check out the thousands of NGOs in India to see it all run by ethnic Indians. Go see all those who protest against rape and acid throwing in the Middle East and South Asia; certainly isn't a group of foreign white crusaders. The claiming of "We're so better" without knowing one first hand thing about another culture is shocking, and borderlines on a word I'd rather not accuse anyone of.
I'd like to see if the Far Right take control of Europe again, and see if we still want to praise our superiority as we lock up Muslims and immigrants.
-
This attitude of "that's why we're better" is precisely the reason why these geopolitical fault lines are emerging.
If people overcame their arrogance in this thread and actually read up on these cultures, rather than relying on demagoguery they read on reddit or tumblr, they will learn that hateful behavior in these other societies stem from ignorance and poor education rather than cultural prerogative.
Culture isn't just about the food you eat or your social norms. It's virtually everything about you. It's the god you worship (or don't), it's the work you tend to do, the levels of schooling available, and it is most definitely the morals you hold.
Contrary to popular belief, terrorism, for example, is not simply the purview of the desperate. In fact, the National Bureau of Economic Research has concluded that simply making people better off will not, in and of itself, reduce acts that we consider fundamentally immoral. Source: http://www.nber.org/digest/sep02/w9074.html (http://www.nber.org/digest/sep02/w9074.html)
People, then, are not simply motivated by empty heads or bellies.
If culture is virtually everything about us that we consider to be related to human behavior, then whether or not you view education as a good thing is, indeed, a cultural question. When fundamentalist American home-schoolers deprive their children of an education in the sciences and literature, because they are "worldly", that is a cultural phenomenon. When Uganda decides to pass laws which dictate death or life in prison for gays, that is a cultural phenomenon.
And those things are bad. Insofar as they render humans less happy, insofar as they increase the net suffering in the world, they are bad. And, insofar as they are, indeed, a part of the culture where they exist, that culture is bad. Bad how? Bad insofar as it renders the people it affects less happy and more miserable than they might otherwise be.
Go check out the thousands of NGOs in India to see it all run by ethnic Indians. Go see all those who protest against rape and acid throwing in the Middle East and South Asia; certainly isn't a group of foreign white crusaders. The claiming of "We're so better" without knowing one first hand thing about another culture is shocking, and borderlines on a word I'd rather not accuse anyone of.
I'd like to see if the Far Right take control of Europe again, and see if we still want to praise our superiority as we lock up Muslims and immigrants.
I don't believe that anyone is claiming that those in other cultures are incapable of valuing, say, the rights of women. But whether one values the rights of women is a cultural artifact. Insofar as, say, Indians decide that they want to make rape and violence against women socially unacceptable, they are changing their culture. Does this mean that they are becoming more western in culture?
Well, yes. If a culture changes to become more like another culture, it is, by definition, becoming more like that culture. American culture has become, in some small ways, more Japanese, as sushi and various other products and customs have been imported. As well, if fascism was suddenly to make a reappearance in Europe, that would be a drastic change to western culture.
As it is now, western culture on the whole is identified very heavily, both internally and externally, with valuing women's rights, gays rights, etc, etc. It is, in fact, what some of the enemies of such a culture, such as Christian and Islamic fundamentalists, accuse us of being evil for valuing. Of course, we do not embody such values perfectly. Still, we value such values.
But if that is true, and it does seem to be, then when we demand that nations adhere to human rights, we are indeed demanding that they adopt our values, parts of our culture that we consider important. We are saying, for example, that we believe that our value of protecting gay men is better and more worthwhile than, say, Iran's policy of hanging them.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/14/iran-gay-men-executed-hanging_n_1515207.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/14/iran-gay-men-executed-hanging_n_1515207.html)
But if you really do believe that cultures are equal, and acknowledging that ethics and morality are an intrinsic part of any culture, then you cannot say that the above is, in any way, a bad thing, or worse than how we might treat gays and lesbians. That's a statement I would wager you are not willing to make.
-
+1 Upvote for Vikarion's post, who made a point I was trying to make better then I was able to articulate.
-
Key quotes from Parliament:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23884550 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23884550)
-
While Iranian authorities persecute gay men, the same authorities provide financial assistance to transsexual people, including altering official documents such as birth certificates - something that the UK does not do.
"Western" culture, is based upon Greek theatre, Roman politics, and Christian morals. These things define the view of the world that people have. The ideas of "rights" is a cultural thing, and is something that the United Nations runs into. The UN Declaration of Human Rights is a "Western" culture artifact.
Outside of "Western" cultures, some of the "rights" are not things that mesh with culture.
The declaration of human rights, relates to an Individual person, but many cultures just do not have the same idea of individuality.
So, using "human rights" to measure different cultures, has to take into account that the idea of "rights" is very, very heavily shaped by Greek-Roman-Christian traditions.
-
I think there is a lot of confusion between culture and dogmatism in this thread.
Edit : to rather expand on what could be taken as a snipe on my behalf (wasn't meant at all), I would hardly call cultures superior to one or another. It's a very dangerous slippery slope that has leaded to various idiocies in the past, even if I am not sure myself if that question can actually be answered - on which criteria ? Vikarions criteria ? Seri's criteria ? slippery slope.
It is easy to say that when you are part of the first world milieu. Very easy. Quite unfair, perhaps, too.
-
The Barefoot College NGO in Rajasthan, India works to improve woman's rights through empowerment. Getting girls into evening classes since they don't attend during the day, teaching housewives technical skills to assist in their villages, etc. And these guys are Hindu. So I don't know where it comes from that the West has a monopoly on these ideas.
I'm still baffled that users here like Saede are making objective statements about culture without having demonstrated any firsthand knowledge of non-US cultures. I'm not exactly an expert either; I was only there for three months, though one half of my family is South Asian, however. I don't take kindly to some of the borderline statements being made.
I could easily construct a negative picture of the West by linking the innumerable and near infinite news stories about sexual assaults against anyone from toddlers to teenagers, claiming that the nature of Western culture encourages such things. Why would that be any different from spamming Ugandan antiLGBT stories?
What I'm seeing is a bunch of armchair Westerners claiming their superiority through second and third hand anecdotes and likely emotive stories on tumblr. How about some first hand anecdotes, or better, some academic journal articles?
I wouldn't talk about quantum physics without sourcing; the same applies here. Both subjects are studied at the highest academic level, so there is no excuse.
-
The Barefoot College NGO in Rajasthan, India works to improve woman's rights through empowerment. Getting girls into evening classes since they don't attend during the day, teaching housewives technical skills to assist in their villages, etc. And these guys are Hindu. So I don't know where it comes from that the West has a monopoly on these ideas.
I'm still baffled that users here like Saede are making objective statements about culture without having demonstrated any firsthand knowledge of non-US cultures. I'm not exactly an expert either; I was only there for three months, though one half of my family is South Asian, however. I don't take kindly to some of the borderline statements being made.
I could easily construct a negative picture of the West by linking the innumerable and near infinite news stories about sexual assaults against anyone from toddlers to teenagers, claiming that the nature of Western culture encourages such things. Why would that be any different from spamming Ugandan antiLGBT stories?
What I'm seeing is a bunch of armchair Westerners claiming their superiority through second and third hand anecdotes and likely emotive stories on tumblr. How about some first hand anecdotes, or better, some academic journal articles?
I wouldn't talk about quantum physics without sourcing; the same applies here. Both subjects are studied at the highest academic level, so there is no excuse.
Man has a point.
Here's a thought for you - western society is essentially really shitty towards old people. No matter how you spin it, the very existence of care homes is an indictment on our attitudes (and my work takes me to plenty of them, they're pretty bad places). I remember a remark by a Jordanian who was asked about issues with the elderly, to the effect of 'we value our families here'.
Don't misunderstand me. I'm not saying this to devalue any of the arguments or try and mitigate some of the issues raised, just pointing out that in any given culture, we will naturally believe that ours is more enlightened than another when in reality, we all have problems.
-
Man has a point.
I disagree.
I do not think that anyone in this thread is arguing - or has argued - that western culture is superior in every aspect. That would be, one might say, more along the lines of imperialism and racism. No, what has been argued is that certain aspects of western culture are superior.
Culture, is, perhaps, a bad word. Not a dirty word, but not a very precise one, rather. When someone says "culture", they are referring to the entire behavior set of an entire group of people, a behavior set that is not entirely homogeneous in practice. For example, I could speak of "Californian culture", but the fact is that, in a 150-mile radius around where I live, there are Christian fundamentalist communities, college communities, conservative and liberal political communities, suburbanites, perhaps some urban African-American communities, and some rednecks (who would be proud to be called such, at that)...and that list is grossly unfair to the multitudes of others I omitted.
Good luck finding beliefs or practices they all agree on.
Yet, out of America, certain ideas and ideals, languages and practices, methods and religious observances, are dominant. This is, as it were, our culture.
Can we say that a culture is better, or worse? Not necessarily - to say that a culture, in totality, is better, is to claim that it is better overall for the majority of people living in it. Can this be determined?
Yes, if one can accept that there are objective ways in which humans can be better off. Can we say that there are such objective valuations?
Yes. Health, for example. If food is a part of culture, certain diets are better for you than others. If certain actions and mental states make you feel better than others, then cultures which promote more positive actions and mental states will reduce the likelihood of you being miserable. Should one value being not-miserable?
Well, when asked this, I tend to resort to Sam Harris's argument: imagine a world in which people are as miserable as possible, for as long as possible, before they die, as miserably as possible. This is the worst of all possible worlds. We can imagine situations close to such a world. We can also imagine things which are further away from such a world. And, by definition, there is no reason to move towards the worst possible world. Even if you wanted others to suffer, the worst possible world would involve that suffering without you getting any pleasure in it.
If morality has anything to do with anything concrete, then it consists of this: avoiding and moving away from the worst possible world for everyone. If that is true, and it is, then it is possible to make value judgments about what things move people further away from the worst possible world. It is possible to scientifically evaluate whether things like homophobia, murder, trustworthiness, theft, diligence, blackmail, and honesty contribute or detract from moving away from the worst possible world. Just as we can evaluate whether eating fatty foods leads to heart attacks, we can evaluate whether such things as placing women in cloth bags or the Westboro Baptist Church are good for human societies.
I trust no one will disagree with my assertion that the ideals of the Westboro Baptist church are not likely to be a good influence on the happiness of human societies.
More abstractly, suppose I construct a society, its elements derived entirely from real world cultures at different times and locations. This culture is known as ABC, and its favored dishes contain massive amounts of cholesterol, trans-fats, and sodium. Drug use, especially alcohol, is considered socially acceptable and even encouraged. Women are considered sub-human, and are not allowed to testify in court or to act without the permission of a man. Gays and lesbians are executed by stoning. Child sacrifice is an essential part of the religion, along with self-flagellation and both female and male circumcision. Weaker children are left to die in the elements, and medical care consists of hoping you get better.
Contrast this with, say, modern Denmark (I do not live in Denmark, by the way). Would anyone here seriously advocate the view that ABC is either morally or practically a better society to live in? Would anyone care to argue that ABC is a place likely to contain happier and healthier citizens? Yet, both are cultures.
Would a person who advocated the replacement of many of the values of ABC with the values of modern Denmark be racist? Well, they might be, or they might not, but in either case, the citizens of culture ABC would be objectively better off over time if they were to abandon many of their cultural practices.
Let us return to the real world, now. Is it true, therefore, that some cultures should be replaced wholesale with others? No! There are portions of any culture which have no great bearing on human well-being, and portions which are positive. For example, I might say that Americans should eat more like Japanese, or adopt a more Mediterranean diet, because those are healthier. That's not a claim that Americans should completely abandon everything American, it is merely pointing out that American food is some of the least healthy on the planet.
Similarly, a demand that Iran stop hanging homosexuals is not a demand that Iran adopt, wholesale, all the values, practices, or ideals of the west. It's a demand that they adopt this particular ideal, because it is better for everyone. Is it better for everyone? Yes, if one examines history, sociology, and other sciences, one comes to the conclusion that gays and lesbians do not have negative effects on society, and that killing off your Alan Turings and Marlene Dietrichs is a bad idea. For everyone. Even if you can convince everyone that killing gays is a good thing, the fact remains that you would be better off convincing everyone that it is a bad thing.
You don't need to have such concepts as "human rights", or "individual rights". All you need is a preference that people not suffer any more than is strictly necessary. That such a preference results in many western liberal values is simply a brute fact. And some non-western values, such as care for the elderly, certainly align with a preference for reduced suffering. It's not that westerners are special. It's just that someone had to get them first - that the cultures which advanced fastest towards these preferences also had greater access to water transport, relatively high agricultural productivity, and contact with many other cultures from which they could get ideas, is almost certainly no accident.
People are not that different around the globe. Virtually none of us like being sick, getting killed, or watching loved ones die. Insofar as these conditions obtain, and insofar as cultural attitudes, ideas, and actions have bearing on them, there will better and worse approaches to these problems. Just as a culture which values using sledges to carry items will be less efficient at the transportation of goods than a culture which prefers wheels, so will certain cultures be better at ensuring greater happiness and less suffering for the biological machines called humans which make up these cultures.
-
Two things.
First, by definition, a moral obligation is a demand to put aside other priorities to effect some action. It isn't a requirement to refrain from action, or to possibly take action, it is imperative, i.e., obligatory. If it isn't obligatory, than it isn't a moral obligation, is it?
It is certainly possible to uphold varieties of moral values or goals, but these things are, by necessity, somewhat looser than obligations. For example, I could hold the moral goal of seeing people not starve to death, but that does not obligate me to a particular action. It merely means that, of the several goals I have, I will not act in such a way as to make starvation more likely. It may mean that I act positively to end starvation. But because it is a goal, rather than an obligation, I am not forced to devote all ends towards ending starvation.
Well, first, you can put conditions on those 'moral obligations'. It's no probalem at all to say that one has a 'moral obligation' to feed the starving if one is better off than 50% of the entire population of the country one lives in. Also, a moral obligation can't be the demand to put aside all other priorities, unconditionally, because then all moral systems based on obligations would be disfunctional as soon as soon as they had at least two such obligations.
So, no, just because you have an obligation to "do x, if y", it doesn't follow that you have to stop doing everything else.
Second, the fact that some people can act in such a way as to fulfill an obligation does not mean that said obligation is a reasonable creation. It is true that a person can act to devote themselves entirely to the welfare of others. The difficulty with this arises when we examine the results of everyone living up to this moral obligation. If most people were to be devoted to the welfare of others, vast inefficiencies would form (you don't know what is good for me as much as I do), free riding would become the optimal survival strategy, and trade, capitalism, and technological progress would grind to a very rapid stop. If mankind continued to follow this "moral obligation", the only people left would be those who refused to go along with it. The obligation would self-annihilate. Actually, when we have tried to implement obligations like this, the societies tended to grind to a halt a long time before that.
Honestly, we have a lot of rules in place that are self defeating if adverse behaviour isn't penalized. That is a question of legislation though, not morals. Your argument here hinges solely on the fact that moral obligations can't be conditional, an assumption that is by the way not true as I pointed out above.
Now, one can make the argument that morality has nothing to do with practicality. Perhaps so. But if it is so, then so much the worse for morality. If behaving practically, rather than morally, makes us all better off, wealthier, healthier, and etc, then there is no reason to be moral. Or, to put it otherwise, morality is only as useful insofar as it makes our lives better. To wit, perhaps it is immoral to tell any lie, as in the categorical imperative, but if I am hiding Jews in the basement, and Nazis are knocking on the door, then the categorical imperative can take a long fucking hike.
The categorical imperative doesn't really work that way, Kantian ethics has answers to this 'dilemma'. Also, it's not the only alternative in the field of moral theory. It can be argued that hiding the Jew in the basement and lieing to the Nazi is the morally good alternative. If one takes the view that practicality takes precedence over morality, actually one is in a worse situation in regard to the Jew, because the biggest number of people involved will be better off if you don't lie. Too bad fro the Jew. Behaving morally good is something that makes our lives better in itself, it is a good - to think it's something that is only useful in so far as it contributes to material welfare is a mistake.
I am not very empathetic. Actually, I may not be, at all, since I'm not sure what empathy should be. Perhaps then, I am missing some key component of moral decision making. But it seems to me that, if one wants to consider matters of morality, one should not start with moral rules and work up to what we should do, but, rather, discard our impulses, consider what works best to create a better world with less suffering, and then construct moral rules from that. In the same way that we understand medical science, originating our theories on the basis of what is best for the patients (i.e., all of us) and then creating goals and rules for general behavior from there. That is understandable, objective, rational, and, hopefully, more workable.
The idea that 'a world with less suffering' is something worthwhile to pursue is an intrinsically moral goal. It 'one should consider what works best to create a better world with less suffering' is a moral rule. Without the first you couldn't get to start considering what is or would be good to do to get towards this goal. Medicine, likewise, starts with stating a goal: Health of the patient. It then gets on to state a general rule of good medical practice: Do whatever is conducive to the production of health for the patient. Intermediate goals are stated from that basis only. If you have a patient that is bleeding to death there is no sense in stating the goal of 'stopping the bleeding' if you don't have the aim of keeping him alive and get him back to health beforehand.
If you don't know where you want to go, you can't form theories and you can't create the intermediate goals that you need to take if you want to make the entire way.
-
Mithra, I have to admit, I am a little curious. From my perspective, morality has to have some practical value before it is valuable, otherwise, it is useless.
For example, I hold to the belief that morality consists of moving away from the worst possible world because moving away from the worst possible world means that I am less likely to experience bad things. I am more likely to enjoy life.
If one does not get a benefit from acting in a certain way (according to a specific morality), why on earth should one act in such a way? I treat people around me well because that means that they will treat me well. What other reason for acting "nicely" could there be?
-
Treat people around you nicely, because it's the right thing to do? The benefit of doing the right action lies in the right action itself, making you a better human than you'd otherwise be.
And of course morality has practical value: It's orienting you life towards goal like 'a better world with less suffering'. That is quite practical in my book. Of course going after it because it (supposedly) increases your chance of experiencing bad things is a certain form of moral egotism. I don't think though, that 'enlightened egotism' is the best moral theory out there.
-
Treat people around you nicely, because it's the right thing to do? The benefit of doing the right action lies in the right action itself, making you a better human than you'd otherwise be.
And of course morality has practical value: It's orienting you life towards goal like 'a better world with less suffering'. That is quite practical in my book.
What does "the right thing to do" mean, aside from practicality? I do "the right thing to do" because it is the most practical means for effecting my own well-being: I am happier not in jail, I am happier when people are not trying to harm me, I am happier when no one is bothering me about my actions.
I presume this is true for most people. The "right thing to do" is generally that which will not lead to negative consequences for oneself. If one could be assured that one's self would always benefit from any action, for example, one would have no compelling reason to act in any way which is not personally aggrandizing.
For example, suppose that I could eat all the pie (silly example, but funny), everywhere, without anyone giving me problems for doing so, and without suffering health problems. Why, then, should I not eat all the pie? Even if others don't get it, provided I suffer no ill effects, I will get to enjoy all of the pie, which is better than enjoying some of the pie.
What does the "right thing to do" even mean, if it doesn't benefit you? I mean, no one requires me to voluntarily jump on a hand grenade. That would not be better for me. We may honor those who do, for some reason, but I doubt that one has to sacrifice oneself to be "moral".
The reason to be "nice", it seems to me, is because it tends to result in others being nice to you. Self-interest. If being mean to others made life better for you/me, then that would be the thing to do...right?
EDIT: I mean, we live in a universe in which limited cooperation seems to work best. That said, why is it a good thing, in your post, what does it mean to be a "better" human, aside from being a happier human?
-
The question there is "What is happiness" or "What is better?", the latter also known as "What is (the) good?". And in what way is the good linked to happiness? I think there are good reasons not to equate 'happiness' with 'pleasure'. Pleasure always depends on external circumstances which aren't in our hand.
If your happiness depends on not being in jail, no one trying to harm you and no one bothering you about your actions, and on how much pie you can eat, your happiness depends on others or things outside you, not you and will be - for this reason alone - be imperfect and lacking.
Worse even, in the case of the pie you would always be happier if you had one more piece of pie to eat. Thus it would be impossible to complete your happiness. You thus set a goal which you never would be able to achieve and this will lead to frustration.
You also presuppose that jumping on the grenade to safe others wouldn't benefit you. But that is only true if you con't your own pleasure as happiness, but not the honors you get if you do so. Of course, the pleasure of recieving honors is as flawed as the one depending on pie to be happy.
Rather the action that is praiseworthy is something that is in our own hand and doing it because it is such an action, rather because we desire the praise and honor, is what makes it desirable to act in such a way and makes the one who acts like it happier in a more complete way than the pleasures which depend on things outside of us.
-
Rather the action that is praiseworthy is something that is in our own hand and doing it because it is such an action, rather because we desire the praise and honor, is what makes it desirable to act in such a way and makes the one who acts like it happier in a more complete way than the pleasures which depend on things outside of us.
I must confess that this makes absolutely no sense to me. For lack of a better way of putting it, you seem to be arguing that we should do good because it is good to do good. This seems to me like a tautology.
You have to have "good" coming from somewhere before you can assert that it should be done, I think. For example, suppose you say that feeding the hungry is "good", and that I should do it. Ok, my response is to ask why that is "good". Saying that doing so is a "good action" is simply to give me an opportunity to repeat my question. Why is it a good action to feed the hungry? What is good about it?
I can give you a rational moral answer to this question: feeding the hungry means that the hungry are less likely to take from you by force, and non-hungry people tend to be more productive, making society, including me, much better off. Therefore, let there be food stamps.
But, if we remove all positive benefits from the equation, how could it possibly be a "good" thing to feed the hungry? Supposing that feeding the hungry made me objectively worse off, why on earth would I be morally obligated to do so?
-
I can give you a rational moral answer to this question: feeding the hungry means that the hungry are less likely to take from you by force, and non-hungry people tend to be more productive, making society, including me, much better off. Therefore, let there be food stamps.
That answer isn't any more rational at all. Why should people be more productive? Why should they be less likely to take things from you by force? Why should you be better off? How does being more productive make you 'better' off?
Also, you can't remove all positive things from the action of feeding the hungry if it is, in itself, a good thing. That would mean to remove the action from itself. There is a good or benefit that is intrinsic to the action itself, that consists in doing it rather than not doing it.
P.S.: Also, you again make your happiness dependant on others. While it might be generally true that foodstamps reduce the risk to get gutted over food, who is to say that some junky won't rip your guts out for a few bucks, leaving you as someone not able to work, to produce anything, bound to the bed and the machine that keeps you breathing or something like that. In one stroke all your 'happiness' and 'benefits' are for nothing. Just because of bad luck. Not a very comforting thought. Such happiness is a very fickle thing. A happiness that is not dependant on luck and circumstance is surely better than one that is.
-
I'm largely in agreement with everything that Vikarion has said, and anything I could write out would basically be poor paraphrasing of anything he said.
-
Most people nowadays have little understanding for non-materialistic, non-utilitaristic moral theories. It's my opinion that this doesn't make materialist Utilitarism right.
-
That answer isn't any more rational at all. Why should people be more productive? Why should they be less likely to take things from you by force? Why should you be better off? How does being more productive make you 'better' off?
Well, let's see. People being more productive makes me happier because people being more productive means that we all have more stuff. Stuff being food, water, houses, and computer games, among other things. Having more stuff makes me happy, or, at least, happier than I was in those parts of my life when I had less stuff. The wealthier and healthier I am, the happier I have tended to be. Do I like being happy? Well, it beats the hell out of being miserable.
Will people take things from me by force if they are happier? Well, not on the average. Forcible acquisition tends to carry certain risks - i.e., I shoot you in the face. This risk of face-shoot-iness is also the reason that I do not take other's stuff, to wit, if I lived close to you and you were to announce tomorrow that you would neither call the police nor initiate any negative action against people acquiring your stuff, you may rest assured that, if I believed you, I would be in possession of much more stuff very soon. :P
Thus, the threat of violence deters looting, robbery, and desperate taking. But, if people are poor and starving enough, eventually even a threat of violence against them will not suffice to protect possessions. And this is presuming that one is in the privileged position - if one does not know all future societal positions of oneself with an element of certainty, then it makes sense to ensure that any particular station one could fall to will not be overly uncomfortable.
Also, you can't remove all positive things from the action of feeding the hungry if it is, in itself, a good thing. That would mean to remove the action from itself. There is a good or benefit that is intrinsic to the action itself, that consists in doing it rather than not doing it.
You seem to presume that one should acquire some gratification from doing things that benefit others. But where is one to get this pleasure from, this happiness, if not from positive effects for oneself from an action? At least for me, there is no intrinsic emotional or other reward provided for simply making sure someone doesn't starve. Whether someone starves or not means nothing unless it has a bearing on me.
Now, perhaps you are arguing that humans should program themselves mentally until they perceive such acts as pleasurable or happiness-inducing. I tried to do this, when I was a Christian, and I must admit that, if anything, I came to resent even more the imposition of arbitrary-seeming decisions about what actions were moral and which were not. Loving my enemies, for example, is, according to the New Testament, an intrinsically good act, commanded by God/Jesus. However, I find that I am distinctly averse to carrying out this command. I will not get in trouble if I don't do it, and it won't benefit me if I do do it. The only reason I might get in trouble is if there really were a God who wanted me to do it, a proposition rather countered by the fact that that is possible trouble later, while loving my enemies would require a great deal of inconvenience right now.
All of my attempts to understand the reason for loving my enemies, or to find some happiness in doing so, were unsuccessful. I had a few enemies, including a family member who was abusive, and I can safely say that loving your enemies will not make you happier in a situation like that. Or, at least it certainly didn't make me happier. My second approach, namely getting the rest of my family to abandon and shun that person, was much more successful, and has made me much happier, both in the feeling of personal power it brought me, and the fact that none of us have to deal with her shit anymore.
What do I mean by all this? It is, essentially, an attempt by me to argue against a concept I do not even understand - the idea that a certain action is good in and of itself. Against this, I must mostly argue personal example: specifically, I have no reason to suspect that any action, even saving a child's life (what if the child were, say, Hitler?), is intrinsically good, or that performing such actions will bring me happiness strictly by performing them.
P.S.: Also, you again make your happiness dependant on others. While it might be generally true that foodstamps reduce the risk to get gutted over food, who is to say that some junky won't rip your guts out for a few bucks, leaving you as someone not able to work, to produce anything, bound to the bed and the machine that keeps you breathing or something like that. In one stroke all your 'happiness' and 'benefits' are for nothing. Just because of bad luck. Not a very comforting thought. Such happiness is a very fickle thing. A happiness that is not dependant on luck and circumstance is surely better than one that is.
Well, by this standard, everyone's happiness is dependent on others. I mean, I can assure you that, no matter how internal your happiness is, there are things which can be done to you which will make you unhappy. Indeed, if we are worried about chance and happenstance, there are quite a few things that the natural world can do to make our lives extremely unpleasant. We can strive to minimize that, but there's always a chance for things to go wrong.
And, even given what you've said, I don't think that your ideal is any better off. If you achieve happiness by doing intrinsically good things (whatever that means, I still can't comprehend it), you still have to have the capacity to do them, and people to do them to/for. You still need farmers if you are going to feed the hungry, for example. So how is your intrinsic action not predicated on the actions of others as well?
-
I'm largely in agreement with everything that Vikarion has said, and anything I could write out would basically be poor paraphrasing of anything he said.
Thanks! :D
-
Well, why should you have more stuff? Why should you be happier than without that stuff? Why should you like being happy? Why should you be happy rather than miserable?
What you say, basically is that you are a-moral. Well, okay, if you think that you are 'better off' if you are amoral in your behaviour, that's your thing. It doesn't devalue the moral life, though. Nor is the point that you don't understand the value of moral life an argument against it. It just means that, apparently, you can't look past your immediate emotional gratification.
And of course what I consider to be good in doing and to bring happiness is better off: First, the good deeds one has done remain as being done, while the gratification of stuff is lost with the stuff. You always can do what is the right thing in your situation. If there are no foodstuffs to feed the poor, then this is of course not something you can do, so you don't have to try it. But you might be able to start farming as well (a good idea anyway if there's no food around) or you might give them an open ear, relieving their misery by listening. Even if you're bound to the bed and can't leave it, you can spare a good word for those visiting you, express your thanks to the ones caring for you. Of course it's even better to live in a functioning society that allows for a wider range of good actions, but that's the subject of political theory, not moral theory. It's not a question of what the single person should do, but how we should organize our society.
The problem here is that you only accept as happiness (immediate) emotional gratification. One can't argue against that. The best thing one can do is to make the appeal that there are other forms of happiness - but if you insist on your position that simply means that you're not really open to debate.
I accept emotional gratification as a form of happiness, but an inferior form - one that should indeed be cultivated to be had on the right occasions. But that's not because you should do these actions out of the emotional gratification. You should do so because otherwise you'd have to act against your emotional predisposition again and again. The value of the right actions isn't in the emotional gratification they might get you. It is indeed not an emotional value at all.
You noticed that I "seem to be arguing that we should do good because it is good to do good. This seems to me like a tautology". It's not. The good thing is by defintion the thing that we should do. The category of the normative seems to be something you don't accept, really. You think in deterministic chains that end with your emotional gratification. This isn't normative at all.
Of course there is a certain rationality to it: A rationality of intermediate goals, aiming at sating your hunger for pleasure. It leaves you as a slave to your lower instincts and urges, using your rationality as a tool for these.
I prefer to that to set ultimate goals, ones that have been set by the human ability to reason, and to use rationality as a tool for achieving these. Likewise I aim at forming my emotional responses in a way that allow me to use them as tools to do what is reasonable.
In your case Aristotle might be right that there are humans that are slaves by nature, posessing enough reason to follow it, but not enough to use it - and thus being in need of outside forces to make them not steal from their neighbours. Or, to use a modern term, you might simply be a sociopath.
-
What Nico said. I am a fervent partisan of rationalism, and that's not the rationalism I support, far from it. That sounds more like selfish pragmatism or realpolitik to me.
__________________
Also, back to Syria, apparently France is still ready and good to go. They just announced recently that their secret services too have proofs of chemical use and stuff, etc etc. They also said that they eventually are waiting for the US to take a decision since they don't think to be able to go alone.
At the Assembly level, there will of course be a debate, but a vote of the National Assembly is not required to war dec people it seems, though they eventually have to go through that after 4 months engaged in war to ensure that it is worth pursuing or not. A lot of political parties are asking for a vote, though, and while the socialist majority seems to be confident to make one pass (and yet refuse to organize one, saying that they do not have to do it so they won't), politics seem divided on the matter and 65% of the public opinion is against that war (including all the more left wing parties, communists, etc).
To their defense though, they are explicitly refusing any vote of the Assembly on the matter since it would validate the war and since nobody knows if the US are going to do the same or not, winning a vote would mean to go, US intervention or no. That precise part of the constitution to let the executive power all the power to decide without any vote required has its pros, and its cons, and I think that we are seeing right now what the cons are.
They also stated that they do not want to take any sides, and are just going to retaliate against chemical weapon uses. The goal would be to eventually deter anyone in the region to do the same in the future.
Not sure what to think of that, but still quite reticent myself.
-
It is quite possible that I am a sociopath. It is also possible that I am not. I certainly do not feel any sort of connection to much human suffering other than my own, and I find it nearly impossible to put myself into the shoes of others. Nonetheless, that does not make me wrong, or utilitarianism wrong. Actually, I think that my mental outlook makes me better suited to impersonal, rational judgments. (To the mods, I'm not offended by Nico's label of me, I think it might indeed be relevant to the discussion.)
For the sake of argument, let's say that I am, indeed, a sociopath. Now, I will qualify this with an admission that I have generally avoided doing anything that will get me tossed into prison. The most I typically indulge in is a bit of speeding now and then. :P
That said, I must confess that I feel I am being given an exceedingly large and easily hit target when I am asked why we should prefer happiness to misery. It is, I think, relatively self-evident that most, perhaps all, human beings prefer to be happy. I certainly do, although I am not particularly upset if you choose misery. Moreover, since misery typically has life-averse antecedents or consequences, being miserable is probably going to result in you not having any say at all fairly quickly. For example, there are few methods better for ensuring one's own misery than setting oneself on fire, but this also tends to ensure that one will soon not be much of anything. So, if nothing else, a preference for at least some happiness and well-being seems to be required for a voice in the conversation, as it were.
That said, I think that asking whether we want to be happy, or possess well-being, is to essentially hit philosophical bedrock. I think a lot can be gained from asking whether a person could even logically desire to exist in the worst possible world (if they do, then a desire is being satisfied, therefore not the WPW), and then going from there to pointing out that, therefore, moving away from the worst possible world is a good thing. But if one is determined to deny that humans really do, fundamentally, want to be happy rather than miserable, and that this is essentially an axiomatic, existence-preferring state of being, I'm not sure that I can help you. I can merely point out that, if one truly wishes to experience non-well-being, they aren't really going to be a concern for longer than it takes them to find a means of self-destruction.
And, I must ask, where are you getting your preferences from, sir? You defend your ethics with an appeal to some higher happiness/well-being. Fine, fine, but if you are going to ask why I should prefer happiness, you are not excluded from the question. If misery is such a viable option, why should we not abandon all happiness, eh? Glass houses and stones, I think. But I digress. The point is that, in all decisions we make, we assume some happiness to be gained, some well-being to be achieved - unless you are willing to assert that a system of ethics which makes everyone worse off is still to be followed as a "good" thing.
- - -
Alright. So much for my defense of happiness. Now, what seems to be advocated is either some sort of odd deontology, or virtue ethics. I have a few criticisms of both.
1.
First, in regards to virtue ethics, I think a fairly cogent criticism of the system is that there is no objective basis for assuming virtues to be virtues. Sure, you might claim that a just, honest, and honorable man is virtuous, but I can simply deny this, and claim that ruthlessness, power, and charisma are more important. If you appeal to the effects these various traits have, then you are appealing, essentially, to utilitarian consequentialism, and I win, because you've just used my ethics to underpin yours. If you appeal to the happiness that certain traits bring about, I can simply point out that if such traits do bring about more happiness, then utilitarian consequentialism incorporates them into the "greatest happiness for the greatest number". After all, if I were passing up sources of happiness, I wouldn't be very utilitarian now, would I?
Second, if there exists people like me, who do not even grasp this "higher happiness" that you speak of, then it is interesting to note that you ascribe to a theory of morality that actually does proclaim that some are born better than others. Not just that some are made more capable, but that some are, in fact, made to be moral superiors of others. But if this is true, if morality is the result of in-born traits, then it is not exactly a choice or personal development, is it? It's merely different programming. In which case, your claim to a morality I cannot grasp is more a claim of your preferences being superior to mine. Do you say that your preferences are better because of how they make you feel, or how they work out for others? Aha! Utilitarian consequentialism again!
2.
And then, to deontology. Well, I think the most cogent argument against deontology is, essentially, the old childish retort of "says who?". More precisely, you can claim that I have a moral duty to do X, but you can't make me agree. I may believe instead in moral duty Y, or in no moral duties at all (as in my personal case). Can you show me to be wrong? Without appealing to the consequences of such behavior (i.e., happiness)?
Another criticism I have is, for example, the trolley problem. It is as follows:
1. Suppose there is a runaway trolley heading down the track, with five people standing on the track. You have a lever near you which you can use to switch the trolley onto an empty siding. Should you push it?
This seems reasonably obvious. Pull the level, get called a hero, whatever. You save five lives, although I would generally be of the opinion that whoever mindlessly stands on a train track may deserve just what he gets. For the purposes of this exercise, however, I'll assume that they had a reason to be there. On to problem 2...
2. As in the above, except that, on the siding, there is another man working on the tracks. If you switch the trolley, he will be killed instead of the five. Do you still pull the lever?
Most people do. After all, you aren't directly killing the man, he's just there. It's unfortunate, but you save five. This might cause problems, however, if one has a moral duty to protect others. Either way, in this case, someone is going to die. In other words, you will be evil no matter what you do, unless your deontology has some clever loopholes for consequences...
3. Instead of a lever and siding, you are standing next to a fat man, wearing some fairly tough clothing. There are still five people further down the track. If you push the fat man in front of the trolley, he will stop the trolley and save the five. He is also the only way to stop the trolley in time. Do you push the fat man?
One can substitute the above problem with another, even more extreme one - supposing that torturing one man to death would save a million? My initial response, in these cases, is simply to assume that, yes, pushing the fat man or torturing the innocent one are indeed justified. The death of five is, weighed in the balance, worse than the death of one, everything else being equal. If one has a moral duty not to kill or torture, however, one is stuck watching five people get run down by a trolley...unless one appeals to the, heh, consequences.
And even if one asserts that one should not push the fat man or torture the innocent man, it must be asked: of what use are morals which leave us dead? Why not simply go ahead and ignore moral duties when not profitable? Yes, we might be somewhat more miserable, but more of us will be alive, too, as opposed to dead, in which case one doesn't get to perform moral duties anyway.
In other words, I think that deontological ethics have no firm metaphysical grounds - there doesn't seem to be a reason to suppose that metaphysical moral imperatives or duties exist, unless these can be evidenced, which so far has not been done. And second, strict adherence to these moral duties would result in worse outcomes for many than would otherwise occur, or, to put it otherwise, even if deontology is true, why not just be "evil" and save more lives in such cases as the trolley problem?
-
I'm not a modern thinker in regards to ethics. Actually, I'm not a modern thinker in most regards, being an Aristotelian. I think that Aristotelian ethics is the best ethical framework we have up to date.
Yes, it has some weak points: But that is as well true for utilitarists, deontologists and modern virtue ethics. That I value these weak points versus those benefits in such a way that I prefer Aristotelian ethics is certainly to some degree personal preference.
There is no clear cut argument that rules one of the ethical systems out as being the best.
You said, though, that you aren't an utilitarist ('cause you don't follow the maxim of 'least pain for most people). Your position is an amoral position, at least in how you described your praxis.
Also, I don't deny that happiness is the goal humans strive for: I merely state that emotional gratification isn't the type of happiness that should be persued in itself (emotional reactions are there to guide us to another good). True happiness consist in action in accordance with reason, having discerned ends in themselves to pursue.
Actually, I think that even though I think that utilitarians got it the wrong way, they do a lot better than amoral beings, because they strive to be moral.
All that said, I personally think that all humans are born with the ability to use reason. It's a potential of all humans. Alas, I think that infact how we are raised does make a difference and that there are different degrees of how easily we can realize our potential to be reasonable beings. Sociopaths are oftentimes quite rational and rarely break the law, just because they fear the consequences rather than for any moral or ethical considerations.
All I can really do is to suggest you read the Nicomachean Ethics (they are available for free in okay-ish translations on the I-net). Aristotle gives a convincing argument there, even though it's not compelling. If it's not for you, then that's it, really.
In the end you will have to decide if you want to put your emotional gratification at the top of your priorities or activity in accordance with reason.
-
Why do you think that Aristotelian ethics are the best we have to date?
I'll try to be more precisely clear - besides the fact that I cannot comprehend your reasons for acting in certain ways, I am also at a loss as to how you are choosing this ethical system. According to what criteria do you say that it is objectively better?
In terms of consequential utilitarianism, I can give the fact that it seems most completely without logical contradictions, most easily based on scientific evidence, and a fairly useful guide to certain actions.
You state that emotional reactions are there to guide us to another good. Which good is this, and why do you call it better than an emotional reaction? What criteria are you using to call it better? These aren't rhetorical questions, I truly am curious.
How do you know what ends are objectively better to pursue? Or do you not hold with objective moral/ethical goals?
You say that I am amoral. Well, if by amoral, you mean "self-interested", then, yes. I do not believe I have ever committed one truly altruistic act in my life, and I feel no poorer for it. That's not to say I never do anything "nice" - I like to get people to like me, among other things. When I was a Christian, I did nice things because I did not want to be punished with hell. I was under the impression that this was true of most people, but it seems that I may have been somewhat mistaken.
Yet, I am not certain that that makes me immoral. Given what I know of game theory, consequentialism, and economics, it benefits me to exist as a largely benign or even benevolent presence in the lives of others. Yes, I could steal, cheat, and murder, but do that enough and you'll either get caught, killed, or you'll destroy the society you live in. I don't particularly like any of those options. So, am I immoral or amoral because I see things as applying to my benefit? I don't think so.
It seems to me that the idea of the virtuous man, in essence, would give those who believed it the moral sanction to harm me, and others, simply because they had not been fortunate enough to decide to pursue the 'higher' virtues of the virtuous man. And how do we know that such men are virtuous? Why, because they are the virtuous men!
So I am slightly suspicious. :P
-
Hardcore moral philosophy - not something I expected on here. This is why you guys are awesome :D
On-topic, the Brits have reaffirmed that they're not going to touch military action with a barge pole, regardless of any other evidence or decisions by other countries. The deputy PM's comment was that there was no point asking parliament the same question over and over.
Now, to the other debate: I must confess that my A-level course in philosophy left me a little disillusioned in moral philosophy, as nothing I'd read seemed to offer satisfactory answers. The closest that I found were Kantian deontological ethics, if only because they offered some kind of hardcore logical premise - but even that was let down by wishy-washiness and a degree of vagueness.
In my opinion, Virtue ethics - while a laudable theory - is dangerously subjective while assuming its own objectivity. This thread is a pretty good demonstration of the variety of cultures, opinions and mindsets in the world, and we represent a tiny fraction of what exists - and perhaps more importantly, what has ever existed. Give that theory to different people, in different places and different times in history, and you would not get the same conclusions from them. There might be a few similarities, but they would by no means identical. If this is an acceptable result, great, but what have we really learned from that? Not that the other two big theories are any better - both utilitarianism and deontology are open to vast amounts of abuse, and the only way that those have been fixed is by literally breaking their own logic.
My personal approach to life has thus become one based on the idea of necessity - specifically, cause no unnecessary harm. No universalisation, no grand theories of right and wrong.
With all that said, I'm not sure I'd call Vikarion a sociopath - or at least, no more so than western capitalist society tries to make all of us. He's exemplifying the selfish consumerist mentality that capitalism inherently encourages; the idea that stuff is important. It's something that we all subscribe to to some extent. And although an extreme, he has a point - all humanity is essentially selfish. I would argue that even Nico's position represents self-interest; the difference being that it is a form of enlightened self-interest centred around improvement of society to be more hospitable to oneself. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you and all that.
-
First thing: amoral isn't the same as immoral. Someone who is amoral simply doesn't care for morality, his actions might seem one way or the other, but because he's not in the state of mind that allows him to choose properly between actions, he lacks in the capacity that would make his actions truely immoral or moral, because that would mean that he chooses his actions for their moral value - or in the case of immoral action depite their moral value.
Let me put it this way: You are apparently unable to enjoy happiness that isn't emotional gratification. If hapiness is what you strive for, it will be better to be able to enjoy more rather than less types of happiness. The steady type of happiness will be better than the unsteady and the happiness that is greater better than the one that is smaller.
Consequential utilitarism, by the way, is filled with logical contradictions, isn't really easy to base on scientific evidence (ought-is-problem) and whether it is a useful guide to certain actions depends entirely on what you mean by 'useful' and 'certain'. Anyway, I reiterate myself: You're not an utilitarist, because the maxim of your action isn't the biggest possible pleasure for the biggest possible number of people, but your maxim is - as far as you've said so far - your own pleasure.
I don't see any sense in arguing against a moral theory, if you really argue for amorality. The point is that you might think your position is rational. That's not true though. You certainly try to realize your maxim by rational means, but that doen't mean that your maxim is rational and even much less resonable.
As I said: I prefer to set a reasonable maxim and follow it by rational means, rather than having an irrational, base instict and urges driven and founded maxim, which I follow in a rational way.
So, how do I know what ends are better to pursue? Well, rather by activity of my ability to reason than the 'self-evidence' of emotional gratification.
If you think that an ethical system gives anyone the sanction to harm you based on a vicious circle, then you really don't understand how ethics work. There are certainly such types of problems with some moral systems - the amoral person isn't better off there, though. In the case of the jew's in the third reich for example, you'd have been not only getting away with snooping out a jew and taking his stuff, you would have furthermore enjoyed the accolades of doing so. Given your maxim of maximizing your own pleasure you might have very well ended up as a reknowned jew-hunter.
The amoral person is always only as good as the judicial system and the system of social penalizing based on the morals of the society, keeping them in check. (Which means immoral persons and criminals are usually worse people.) The moral person is as good as the moral system she follows. The ethical person can and tries to be better than that.
-
In my opinion, Virtue ethics - while a laudable theory - is dangerously subjective while assuming its own objectivity. This thread is a pretty good demonstration of the variety of cultures, opinions and mindsets in the world, and we represent a tiny fraction of what exists - and perhaps more importantly, what has ever existed. Give that theory to different people, in different places and different times in history, and you would not get the same conclusions from them. There might be a few similarities, but they would by no means identical. If this is an acceptable result, great, but what have we really learned from that? Not that the other two big theories are any better - both utilitarianism and deontology are open to vast amounts of abuse, and the only way that those have been fixed is by literally breaking their own logic.
If we forsook all things that are open to abuse, then we would stand there quite empty handed. And actually, I think it is a strength of virtue ethics that it is sensitive to context. A good ethical theory should be able to get into a meaningful relation with the people applying it. Furthermore I am of the opinion that what is good for one culture doesn't need to be good for another. As example: It's good for Mike Tyson to drink and eat as he does. For John Smith sitting all day at his PC doing paperwork, it'd prolly be the wrong diet.
My personal approach to life has thus become one based on the idea of necessity - specifically, cause no unnecessary harm. No universalisation, no grand theories of right and wrong.
How is 'cause no unnecessary harm' not a universalisation? And how is it not open to misuse? One can easily justify all kinds of things by citing that it is necessary harm. And while I agree that it's no grand theory of right and wrong, it still seems to be a theory of right and wrong. :)
With all that said, I'm not sure I'd call Vikarion a sociopath - or at least, no more so than western capitalist society tries to make all of us. He's exemplifying the selfish consumerist mentality that capitalism inherently encourages; the idea that stuff is important. It's something that we all subscribe to to some extent. And although an extreme, he has a point - all humanity is essentially selfish.
That all humanity is essentially selfish is a steep hypothesis, one that is hard to validate, to not speak of proof. What makes him sociopathic is the total lack of empathy and, apparently, behavioral control if not stimulated to do so by social levers.
I would argue that even Nico's position represents self-interest; the difference being that it is a form of enlightened self-interest centred around improvement of society to be more hospitable to oneself. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you and all that.
There's nothing wrong with self-interest, but with making self-interest the be-all end-all. My position doesn't essentially rest on reciprocal gratification. Of course it is better if you get rewarded directly or indirectly for the right action, than if there's no reward, but my position is that the right action is rewarding in itself, even if there is neither a direct or indirect reward by the external world.
-
http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/03/world/meast/syria-civil-war/index.html?hpt=hp_t1 (http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/03/world/meast/syria-civil-war/index.html?hpt=hp_t1)
Sure, NOW he agrees.
-
This stuff is the stuff we know how to do. We'll lose some planes, we'll expend some ordnance and we'll strip off a good percentage of Assad's arsenal of expensive toys.
Yes that includes the Russian air defence system. If you think the Air Force hasn't been drooling at the chance to percussively test it, you don't understand how the Air Force thinks.
I don't think it'll go too far, because I'm not sure WE want the rebels to win any more than Assad does. Another version of Iran is hardly better for us - on the other hand Syria has crossed more than a few lines and it sounds like America and France are up for paying the tab.
-
It feels to me like they are gallivanting off to be big proud heroes, when we need the money, and we would actually benefit if Assad killed a lot more. Or vice-versa, since it seems to be nasty versus nasty over there.
Oh well, maybe it will turn out ok, but I doubt it. It seems to me like they are rolling in the fire ant nest naked after shampooing with honey, but hey, not like I can stop it.
-
No offence, but exactly what are the Syrians going to DO about it?
Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but they'll either fold quickly and save some of their assets whilst letting the coalition of two 'splode what they want or fold late and lose a lot of assets in ADDITION to the targets.
-
No offence, but exactly what are the Syrians going to DO about it?
Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but they'll either fold quickly and save some of their assets whilst letting the coalition of two 'splode what they want or fold late and lose a lot of assets in ADDITION to the targets.
Oh, I'm sure that we won't lose the battle. But we are not a nation infinitely full of the ability to fight battles, and every battle we fight (guns) is a large amount of money that cannot be spent here (butter).
-
Granted. But what makes you think the money would be spent sensibly in ANY case?
It wouldn't be spent on infrastructure.
It wouldn't be spent on health care.
It would be (properly) spent on education.
-
This stuff is the stuff we know how to do. We'll lose some planes, we'll expend some ordnance and we'll strip off a good percentage of Assad's arsenal of expensive toys.
Yes that includes the Russian air defence system. If you think the Air Force hasn't been drooling at the chance to percussively test it, you don't understand how the Air Force thinks.
I know exactly how the Air Force thinks, and right now it has 12 fighter squadrons that are not combat ready due to Sequestration.
-
Granted. But what makes you think the money would be spent sensibly in ANY case?
It wouldn't be spent on infrastructure.
It wouldn't be spent on health care.
It would be (properly) spent on education.
Or space programs. I'm really into space programs.
-
Regardless of this Syria debate,
Some of you people's answers make me awfully sad as a human.
I see a lot of cold souls and lack of compassion, and a lot of 'it's not in my backyard so I could give a shit."
I'm not saying intervention or violence is necessarily the right answer, but some of these responses I've actually found a bit shocking for a lack of empathy at other human suffering.
It's easy to debate and worry about the finer points about GDP, the UN, 'blood and treasure' from our cushy houses, full bellies, and safe borders.
You people have everything. Many parts of the world have nothing, live in fear, and bear violence daily. A little compassion goes a long way to changing how these things are looked at.
The right things done even for the wrong reasons are still good sometimes.
-
No offense, but it hasn't worked the last few times we did it. Also, we can't foot the bill. It's just irresponsible flat out. The people we put in D.C. were placed there to serve the American people, no one else. The American people don't want ANY combat. We want our economy fixed, people in jobs, our infrastructure fixed, and investment in this country, no one elses. It's cold sure, but that's unfortunately the world we live in.
-
Regardless of this Syria debate,
Some of you people's answers make me awfully sad as a human.
I see a lot of cold souls and lack of compassion, and a lot of 'it's not in my backyard so I could give a shit."
I'm not saying intervention or violence is necessarily the right answer, but some of these responses I've actually found a bit shocking for a lack of empathy at other human suffering.
It's easy to debate and worry about the finer points about GDP, the UN, 'blood and treasure' from our cushy houses, full bellies, and safe borders.
You people have everything. Many parts of the world have nothing, live in fear, and bear violence daily. A little compassion goes a long way to changing how these things are looked at.
The right things done even for the wrong reasons are still good sometimes.
For shame folks, we're getting morality lessons from the crazed Sabik!
(Couldn't resist, it appealed to my dark sense of humour. :cube:, Silas.)
Seriously though, I agree with much of this except the last line. Any complex question like Syria gets into murky waters rapidly, to the point where the thing that really matters is the intention and the reasons for any action taken. I can't help but be reminded of the old chestnut about the road to hell and what it's paved with, but in a sense, the other way round. To disregard intent is just as dangerous (if not more so) than to disregard the actions taken.
-
I do sympathize with all the people caught between the government and the rebels. The problem is, is an act of aggression against either the government or the rebels going to help those who actually need the help?
Replacing the current regime with whatever the rebels offer isn't likely to make things any better for the common person in Syria, despite what the rebels might tell you. And I can't help the feeling that the rebels would be willing to do the same thing to the population; there does seem to be a very strong for us or against us mentality on both sides of this conflict.
I'd like to think that a coalition sweeping in and deposing the current government would solve the problem, but it won't.
One of the concerns I have with the US going in, is the fact that right now anti-US sentiments in the Middle East seem to be at an all time high. As much as I want something done to put an end to this senselessness, the US going in could cause more harm than good. Still, no one else is able to project the force that the States can, though from the sounds of things, it still might take some time before they can start air missions in the area.
It really is a damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario for the States and really for anyone hoping to see an end to the civil war (let's face it, it is a civil war despite third parties trying to claim otherwise).
-
The existence of such a thing as a UN security council veto defeats the purpose of that council even existing. It is literally the most counter-productive thing they could possibly have. The fact that five nations have said veto, one of which is fucking RUSSIA, means that I lack the imagination to produce a descriptive hyperbole for how stupid that is which wouldn't be an understatement.
How the fuck hard is it to just have a "simple majority" rule?
Fairly hard since that "simple majority" puts a country like North Korea on the Human Rights Commission. But I will support your proposition when everyone is paying the same %.
-
The existence of such a thing as a UN security council veto defeats the purpose of that council even existing. It is literally the most counter-productive thing they could possibly have. The fact that five nations have said veto, one of which is fucking RUSSIA, means that I lack the imagination to produce a descriptive hyperbole for how stupid that is which wouldn't be an understatement.
How the fuck hard is it to just have a "simple majority" rule?
Fairly hard since that "simple majority" puts a country like North Korea on the Human Rights Commission. But I will support your proposition when everyone is paying the same %.
This, pretty much.
The UN is in a particularly weird stalemate. The general assembly is controlled by the majority "poor" countries, while the veto votes are held by the minority "poor" countries. This essentially creates an adversarial situations where neither the rich nor the poor can get anything passed.
-
I think there was meant to be a "rich" after minority, no Tiberious.
That said, Stitcher, what really freaks me out is that not only Russia is holding a veto but the USA! How stupid is that? [irony off] The UN isn't there as an extension of US foreign policy...
-
I think there was meant to be a "rich" after minority, no Tiberious.
That said, Stitcher, what really freaks me out is that not only Russia is holding a veto but the USA! How stupid is that? [irony off] The UN isn't there as an extension of US foreign policy...
Why is it worse that the U.S. hold a veto than, say, England, Russia, France, or China? Even given the rather high body count the United States has racked up during its lifetime, all of the others, except perhaps France, have managed to outdo the U.S. in that particular competition, although perhaps not in as concentrated a time.
-
I think there was meant to be a "rich" after minority, no Tiberious.
That said, Stitcher, what really freaks me out is that not only Russia is holding a veto but the USA! How stupid is that? [irony off] The UN isn't there as an extension of US foreign policy...
Why is it worse that the U.S. hold a veto than, say, England, Russia, France, or China? Even given the rather high body count the United States has racked up during its lifetime, all of the others, except perhaps France, have managed to outdo the U.S. in that particular competition, although perhaps not in as concentrated a time.
I think it is the "old empires" being smug about the young upstart. But then Britain, France, and Russia were living in huts while the Greeks, Persians, Indians, and Chinese were at various points in history the "big boys on the block."
IE a bit of trolling.
-
Regardless of this Syria debate,
Some of you people's answers make me awfully sad as a human.
I see a lot of cold souls and lack of compassion, and a lot of 'it's not in my backyard so I could give a shit."
I'm not saying intervention or violence is necessarily the right answer, but some of these responses I've actually found a bit shocking for a lack of empathy at other human suffering.
It's easy to debate and worry about the finer points about GDP, the UN, 'blood and treasure' from our cushy houses, full bellies, and safe borders.
You people have everything. Many parts of the world have nothing, live in fear, and bear violence daily. A little compassion goes a long way to changing how these things are looked at.
The right things done even for the wrong reasons are still good sometimes.
I think I am cold. I don't mind that label. Actually, I like it, at least as opposed to "emotional", or "hot-headed" (I am not implying this of any posters here), which are two traits I would argue have caused much more harm than strict calculation.
Yes, I have a generally full belly and a reasonably comfortable place to sleep. I also happen to work around ten hours a day, often six days a week, with fairly nasty chemicals, in order to keep those things. Is that a better life than many people in Syria get? Sure. Is it also a lot worse of a life than many others get? Yes. But that doesn't matter. Correct judgments as to optimal choices for a country have little to do with my personal comfort. If every person in Syria dies, I will not sleep one degree more uncomfortably than I do now, and if every last person was resurrected to peace and happiness tomorrow, I would not be one whit better off...and neither would you, except, perhaps, emotionally. This is true unless one of our countries decides to destabilize the region and blow a few tons of Syria and Syrians into small pieces, which, (worst and best case scenarios above be damned) I can guarantee you, will result in a lot of people in either country being a lot worse off.
And no. I have no empathy, and no compassion. I do not care about the Syrians who were gassed, and I will not care if more are. I'm not trying to be offensive, I simply do not understand why one would form an attachment to someone whom you have no interest in.
But I do know this: Syria is currently caught between Assad/Iran, and a rebel army now largely composed of Al-Qaeda and other Islamic fundamentalists. If we topple Assad's government, we are going to inflame Iran and weaken the position of its new, more pro-western leader. We are going to give the religious leaders of the Shiite sects - including in Iraq - a lot of reasons to suspect that we have it in for them. We are almost certainly going to create an unstable state which might well adhere strongly to the ideals of the Taliban - who are a hell of a lot worse than Assad. We are going to exacerbate ties with Russia, and give Putin even more ammo to consolidate his position as dictator atop a swell of anti-western sentiment.
And we are going to spend a hell of a lot of money that we do not have.
This is really, really, not a good idea.
-
Regardless of this Syria debate,
Some of you people's answers make me awfully sad as a human.
I see a lot of cold souls and lack of compassion, and a lot of 'it's not in my backyard so I could give a shit."
I'm not saying intervention or violence is necessarily the right answer, but some of these responses I've actually found a bit shocking for a lack of empathy at other human suffering.
It's easy to debate and worry about the finer points about GDP, the UN, 'blood and treasure' from our cushy houses, full bellies, and safe borders.
You people have everything. Many parts of the world have nothing, live in fear, and bear violence daily. A little compassion goes a long way to changing how these things are looked at.
The right things done even for the wrong reasons are still good sometimes.
I think I am cold. I don't mind that label. Actually, I like it, at least as opposed to "emotional", or "hot-headed" (I am not implying this of any posters here), which are two traits I would argue have caused much more harm than strict calculation.
Yes, I have a generally full belly and a reasonably comfortable place to sleep. I also happen to work around ten hours a day, often six days a week, with fairly nasty chemicals, in order to keep those things. Is that a better life than many people in Syria get? Sure. Is it also a lot worse of a life than many others get? Yes. But that doesn't matter. Correct judgments as to optimal choices for a country have little to do with my personal comfort. If every person in Syria dies, I will not sleep one degree more uncomfortably than I do now, and if every last person was resurrected to peace and happiness tomorrow, I would not be one whit better off...and neither would you, except, perhaps, emotionally. This is true unless one of our countries decides to destabilize the region and blow a few tons of Syria and Syrians into small pieces, which, (worst and best case scenarios above be damned) I can guarantee you, will result in a lot of people in either country being a lot worse off.
And no. I have no empathy, and no compassion. I do not care about the Syrians who were gassed, and I will not care if more are. I'm not trying to be offensive, I simply do not understand why one would form an attachment to someone whom you have no interest in.
But I do know this: Syria is currently caught between Assad/Iran, and a rebel army now largely composed of Al-Qaeda and other Islamic fundamentalists. If we topple Assad's government, we are going to inflame Iran and weaken the position of its new, more pro-western leader. We are going to give the religious leaders of the Shiite sects - including in Iraq - a lot of reasons to suspect that we have it in for them. We are almost certainly going to create an unstable state which might well adhere strongly to the ideals of the Taliban - who are a hell of a lot worse than Assad. We are going to exacerbate ties with Russia, and give Putin even more ammo to consolidate his position as dictator atop a swell of anti-western sentiment.
And we are going to spend a hell of a lot of money that we do not have.
This is really, really, not a good idea.
This.
-
Regardless of this Syria debate,
Some of you people's answers make me awfully sad as a human.
I see a lot of cold souls and lack of compassion, and a lot of 'it's not in my backyard so I could give a shit."
I'm not saying intervention or violence is necessarily the right answer, but some of these responses I've actually found a bit shocking for a lack of empathy at other human suffering.
It's easy to debate and worry about the finer points about GDP, the UN, 'blood and treasure' from our cushy houses, full bellies, and safe borders.
You people have everything. Many parts of the world have nothing, live in fear, and bear violence daily. A little compassion goes a long way to changing how these things are looked at.
The right things done even for the wrong reasons are still good sometimes.
And no. I have no empathy, and no compassion. I do not care about the Syrians who were gassed, and I will not care if more are. I'm not trying to be offensive, I simply do not understand why one would form an attachment to someone whom you have no interest in.
It's pretty simple, really: the average, well-adjusted human feels sadness at the suffering of another. In fact, the DSM classifies a lack of empathy and disdain of close attachments as serious signs of sociopathy, the height of abnormality.
The problem is that the deaths and the destruction won't be yours to own. It won't be your backyard being invaded by foreign nations and blown to pieces, illegally, over a geopolitical hand of poker. Watching somebody die is much different than just hearing "x number of y people were killed today."
It's not isolated to just this one incident, I'm just explaining why it continues to happen without opposition.
-
Even given the rather high body count the United States has racked up during its lifetime, all of the others, except perhaps France, have managed to outdo the U.S. in that particular competition, although perhaps not in as concentrated a time.
I think you and orange missed the ironic tag in Nico's post. Stitcher was saying "omg Russia holds a veto !", Mithra answered "but the US too !" tongue in cheek. Unless i'm mistaken.
Also, what does that even mean, "except perhaps France" ? Between crusades, various european wars, Napoleonic wars, WW1, and even WW2, the body bag count is there. And yes, WW2 too, the Blitzkrieg in 1940, contrary to popular belief, was one of the most bloody campaign of all WW2, for both sides, with peaks of 250k deaths in a few weeks.
And in concentrated time, Russia probably holds the palm hands down.
-
Regardless of this Syria debate,
Some of you people's answers make me awfully sad as a human.
I see a lot of cold souls and lack of compassion, and a lot of 'it's not in my backyard so I could give a shit."
I'm not saying intervention or violence is necessarily the right answer, but some of these responses I've actually found a bit shocking for a lack of empathy at other human suffering.
It's easy to debate and worry about the finer points about GDP, the UN, 'blood and treasure' from our cushy houses, full bellies, and safe borders.
You people have everything. Many parts of the world have nothing, live in fear, and bear violence daily. A little compassion goes a long way to changing how these things are looked at.
The right things done even for the wrong reasons are still good sometimes.
I think I am cold. I don't mind that label. Actually, I like it, at least as opposed to "emotional", or "hot-headed" (I am not implying this of any posters here), which are two traits I would argue have caused much more harm than strict calculation.
Yes, I have a generally full belly and a reasonably comfortable place to sleep. I also happen to work around ten hours a day, often six days a week, with fairly nasty chemicals, in order to keep those things. Is that a better life than many people in Syria get? Sure. Is it also a lot worse of a life than many others get? Yes. But that doesn't matter. Correct judgments as to optimal choices for a country have little to do with my personal comfort. If every person in Syria dies, I will not sleep one degree more uncomfortably than I do now, and if every last person was resurrected to peace and happiness tomorrow, I would not be one whit better off...and neither would you, except, perhaps, emotionally. This is true unless one of our countries decides to destabilize the region and blow a few tons of Syria and Syrians into small pieces, which, (worst and best case scenarios above be damned) I can guarantee you, will result in a lot of people in either country being a lot worse off.
And no. I have no empathy, and no compassion. I do not care about the Syrians who were gassed, and I will not care if more are. I'm not trying to be offensive, I simply do not understand why one would form an attachment to someone whom you have no interest in.
But I do know this: Syria is currently caught between Assad/Iran, and a rebel army now largely composed of Al-Qaeda and other Islamic fundamentalists. If we topple Assad's government, we are going to inflame Iran and weaken the position of its new, more pro-western leader. We are going to give the religious leaders of the Shiite sects - including in Iraq - a lot of reasons to suspect that we have it in for them. We are almost certainly going to create an unstable state which might well adhere strongly to the ideals of the Taliban - who are a hell of a lot worse than Assad. We are going to exacerbate ties with Russia, and give Putin even more ammo to consolidate his position as dictator atop a swell of anti-western sentiment.
And we are going to spend a hell of a lot of money that we do not have.
This is really, really, not a good idea.
This.
This +1.
-
Regardless of this Syria debate,
Some of you people's answers make me awfully sad as a human.
I see a lot of cold souls and lack of compassion, and a lot of 'it's not in my backyard so I could give a shit."
I'm not saying intervention or violence is necessarily the right answer, but some of these responses I've actually found a bit shocking for a lack of empathy at other human suffering.
It's easy to debate and worry about the finer points about GDP, the UN, 'blood and treasure' from our cushy houses, full bellies, and safe borders.
You people have everything. Many parts of the world have nothing, live in fear, and bear violence daily. A little compassion goes a long way to changing how these things are looked at.
The right things done even for the wrong reasons are still good sometimes.
And no. I have no empathy, and no compassion. I do not care about the Syrians who were gassed, and I will not care if more are. I'm not trying to be offensive, I simply do not understand why one would form an attachment to someone whom you have no interest in.
It's pretty simple, really: the average, well-adjusted human feels sadness at the suffering of another. In fact, the DSM classifies a lack of empathy and disdain of close attachments as serious signs of sociopathy, the height of abnormality.
The problem is that the deaths and the destruction won't be yours to own. It won't be your backyard being invaded by foreign nations and blown to pieces, illegally, over a geopolitical hand of poker. Watching somebody die is much different than just hearing "x number of y people were killed today."
It's not isolated to just this one incident, I'm just explaining why it continues to happen without opposition.
The death of an individual is a tragedy. The death of a million people is a statistic.
Seriously though. The UN was simply created in order that all nations have a means of expressing themselves peacefully and so that we have a framework in which all nations can be polled.
As the friction between the Veto states has declined, the importance of the security council has also declined. It is now expected that China/Russia will simply veto any initiative of the US, UK and France out of hand. China and Russia themselves are far too cynical to ever have floated their plans past the Security council for ratification - they believe the potential benefits are outweighed by the loss of face if they're vetoed.
As for the 'cold' attitude of people here - I would wager that very few here have actually seen what a situation like Syria looks like on the ground. Those that have would likely consider any means necessary to prevent it from happening on their own soil. Those who haven't are capable of intellectualising it. In addition it is all happening so very far away to a people that haven't been humanised by our media for decades.
-
At least for the U.S., with the knowledge I have of our military capabilities....the chances of a chemical missile even reaching half-way to our maritime borders is slim to none. We may be in debt, but that debt went towards weapons that haven't even seen the light of day yet. Always hold your best hand, etc.
But yeah, I see where you're coming from Pieter...but I still side with Vikarion. We're not in a position to go in and stop this as bad a situation as it may be. It's not a matter of whether or not one has experienced it, or the morality of one's self. It's a matter of the facts at hand; we cannot afford this, we have no major interest there, and the consequences of engaging far outweigh that of not engaging.
-
I suppose the point is that America is probably the only country with the military means to destroy Assad's stockpile of chemical weapons. France is probably the country that sold him them, so I can see why they want to clean up the mess too.
The facts at hand... It is a relatively trivial matter for the US to act to prevent Assad using further chemical munitions by destroying those munitions.
-
If we're only talking about the chemical weapons, then yeah. Cratering a few command and control centers is stupidly easily for us.
But it's not just the weapons that need to be considered. Russia has a fleet there already, Iran may jump in and close the Straight of Hormuz to send oil prices soaring and force us to fight two fronts, Russia/Iran/China may choose to engage US for engaging Syria, Israel's trigger happy ass will get over involved, extremist elements will begin causing a muck everywhere, the U.S. will end up in MORE debt to fund another escalating war despite sequestration with a bum congress who can't do shit, domestic discontent will rocket potentially causing spread acts of civil disobedience and a further burden on the economy/jobs market/consumer pockets because of taxes, inactive military units will have to be reactivated and that'll take time, and very VERY expensive weapons systems we just started manufacturing may go boom whilst fighting SU-27's, MiG-29's, and who knows what else they'll throw at us.
If it was just the chemical weapons, I'd agree with you. But there's just too much more to consider. This situation is far, far more complex. I WISH it was as simple as:
1) Pew missile command center
2) No one defends Syria
3) Go home, have pie
I'm not being sarcastic either. I REALLY wish it was that simple, pie and all. Sadly, politicians...no, humans make this bullshit complex.
EDIT: UNLESS all that money in Defense wasn't actually poorly spent and was secretly spent on very new, very advanced systems being kept as an Ace in the hole. Like...if the worst happens and a freaking Gundam of Orbital Frame pops up and blasts everything without taking a scratch....whelp...least it'll be quick LOL.
EDIT 2:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/05/us-russia-g-idUSBRE98315S20130905 (http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/05/us-russia-g-idUSBRE98315S20130905)
Psh G20? About the economy? Naaaw let's talk more about Syria and stare at each other awkwardly with passive aggressive statements while the freaking POPE SAYS IT'S A BAD IDEA. Oh, did I mention there's word of some Chinese naval vessels off Syria's coast to 'observe' the situation? So right now I think it's:
US: 5-7 Vessels (some rumored to be equiped with the experimental railgun system)
Russia: 10-12 Vessels
China: 3-4 Vessels
-
France is probably the country that sold him them, so I can see why they want to clean up the mess too.
Really ? Where did you read that ?
It might explain a lot of things though.
-
I do not care about the Syrians who were gassed, and I will not care if more are. I'm not trying to be offensive, I simply do not understand why one would form an attachment to someone whom you have no interest in.
And I'm done here.
-
Russia's fleet will not engage the US fleet. If you think they will then you're misreading Russia's horse in this race. In any event the Russian fleet in-theater isn't a decent match up for the US fleet in-theater and the US fleet has reinforcements.
The US fleet has already sortied a carrier battlegroup to the region. Nobody in the WORLD has anything that could seriously threaten a Carrier Battlegroup in a straight fight.
So, yes, it can be as simple as:
1. Pew the Command Center and stockpile.
2. Go home.
3. Pie.
But it won't be, because the pentagon cannot plan a mission without including feature creep as a feature.
-
Our stuff is good, but it isn't THAT good. I mean you may be right, and the Russians are just posturing and actually won't do a damn thing. If that happens, well good for us. But if it does, they still have a lot of numbers. Unless our ships actually ARE equipped with railguns, it'll be tough. Even then, they can only fire 10 times a minute. So IF the test results of the railguns were accurate, and they can legit tear through a ship not equipped with armor plating our Navy uses, then we could take 'em on. But not without cost, as in our people dying and ships taking a good beating. Also, the whole possibility of escalation, even if it's not that credible, still makes me worry.
EDIT: ALSO NO PEWING OF THE STOCKPILE!!! That may just make a big, roving chemical cloud of 'SCREW YOU' pop up.
-
A MOAB will burn Saarin gas to nothing.
-
A MOAB will burn Saarin gas to nothing.
We want pinpoint strikes in Syria, not giant blasts to crater the thing. Too much collateral damage would be had. That and we only have 15, 1 is somewhere in the Persian Gulf. We never actually mass produced/deployed them. Last test was 2003.
-
Our stuff is good, but it isn't THAT good. I mean you may be right, and the Russians are just posturing and actually won't do a damn thing. If that happens, well good for us. But if it does, they still have a lot of numbers. Unless our ships actually ARE equipped with railguns, it'll be tough. Even then, they can only fire 10 times a minute. So IF the test results of the railguns were accurate, and they can legit tear through a ship not equipped with armor plating our Navy uses, then we could take 'em on. But not without cost, as in our people dying and ships taking a good beating. Also, the whole possibility of escalation, even if it's not that credible, still makes me worry.
EDIT: ALSO NO PEWING OF THE STOCKPILE!!! That may just make a big, roving chemical cloud of 'SCREW YOU' pop up.
Ship to ship combat do not use "railguns" as primary weapons. If they have to resort to such guns, it's the guns replacing the old artillery. Artillery is an old fashion arsenal used for broadsides.
You can bet that first they will fire at each other cruise missiles and send jets before actually going into brawling range.
-
Will the carrier group even get in range in time to assist them? I mean if so, great but eh...
Also, the Naval railgun doesn't do brawling. It doesn't have to.
That thing can hit a target 2 miles away with a slug moving near Mach 8. It laughs are brawling.
-
If there aren't cruise missile submarines there already, I'll eat my arse.
-
Regardless of this Syria debate,
Some of you people's answers make me awfully sad as a human.
I see a lot of cold souls and lack of compassion, and a lot of 'it's not in my backyard so I could give a shit."
I'm not saying intervention or violence is necessarily the right answer, but some of these responses I've actually found a bit shocking for a lack of empathy at other human suffering.
It's easy to debate and worry about the finer points about GDP, the UN, 'blood and treasure' from our cushy houses, full bellies, and safe borders.
You people have everything. Many parts of the world have nothing, live in fear, and bear violence daily. A little compassion goes a long way to changing how these things are looked at.
The right things done even for the wrong reasons are still good sometimes.
And no. I have no empathy, and no compassion. I do not care about the Syrians who were gassed, and I will not care if more are. I'm not trying to be offensive, I simply do not understand why one would form an attachment to someone whom you have no interest in.
It's pretty simple, really: the average, well-adjusted human feels sadness at the suffering of another. In fact, the DSM classifies a lack of empathy and disdain of close attachments as serious signs of sociopathy, the height of abnormality.
The problem is that the deaths and the destruction won't be yours to own. It won't be your backyard being invaded by foreign nations and blown to pieces, illegally, over a geopolitical hand of poker. Watching somebody die is much different than just hearing "x number of y people were killed today."
It's not isolated to just this one incident, I'm just explaining why it continues to happen without opposition.
As for the 'cold' attitude of people here - I would wager that very few here have actually seen what a situation like Syria looks like on the ground. Those that have would likely consider any means necessary to prevent it from happening on their own soil. Those who haven't are capable of intellectualising it. In addition it is all happening so very far away to a people that haven't been humanised by our media for decades.
Of course not. People who spout off bravado about how little they care have A) never witnessed wartime deaths and B) have nothing to lose by acting tough. In reality, if they had to see somebody die in a sarin gas attack, they'd be humanitarians tomorrow.
Ironically, if it happened here, those same people would be shouting "terrorism" at the top of their lungs.
Is it a bad idea to start this mess? Absolutely. But adding the attitude of "fuck them, they're not my people" is not only tragic, it also makes you part of the problem.
-
Anslol, a carrier battlegroup can be just about anywhere in the world in about 48-72 hrs, give or take, thats theyre big advantage. Nimitz class carriers are insanely fast when they want to be.
And 2 miles is literally point blank range for naval surface engagements. Thats knife fight range. Most engagements are far over the horizon. The rail guns would likely have almost no meaningful impact on any engagement of modern vessels.
And yes, the Chinese and Russian vessels arent a real threat to the US navy if things went hot, and they know it. Its kabuki theater for their allies.
(written by a former navy intel specialist)
-
@ Gottii- ...welp, I can literally not argue with you due to your background LOL. Thanks for the info!
@ Felix- I'm sorry, it's bravado and being 'part of the problem' to be practical and realistic about the situation? We didn't say that this isn't a tragedy. It sucks that it happens. I don't want to see it happen again. But we, the U.S., cannot afford another possible war. Hell, the American people demand no action at all. We got too much shit to deal with.
@ Pieter- Will record.
-
As far as I know, the US Navy won't have railguns in service until 2025.
But then, the design specs will include 5m accuraccy at an effective range of 200nmi, and 6 shots per minute.
-
@ Felix- I'm sorry, it's bravado and being 'part of the problem' to be practical and realistic about the situation? We didn't say that this isn't a tragedy. It sucks that it happens. I don't want to see it happen again. But we, the U.S., cannot afford another possible war. Hell, the American people demand no action at all. We got too much shit to deal with.
If you'd read the post, you might notice my complaint isn't that you, or anyone else thinks this is a bad idea. My complaint is that Vik, among others, prefaced that with indifference towards murder. You "+1'd" that without making a distinction, ergo, I assumed you agreed.
-
As far as I know, the US Navy won't have railguns in service until 2025.
But then, the design specs will include 5m accuraccy at an effective range of 200nmi, and 6 shots per minute.
...I'm sorry...you mean...nautical miles?...like...200+ MILE RANGE????
-
More +1 for the sentiment versus just not caring if people died. I'm more for our politicians actually caring about the people who put them in office.
It sucks that it happened, but we can't keep gallivanting like this.
-
Part of the problem is that what is being offered is not about removing Assad from power and making efforts to create a semi-democratic state(s). In order to avoid another Iraq, the POTUS and SecState are offering limited strikes as punishment for the use of Chemical Weapons.
The strikes will not help the FSA, they will not prevent Assad from continuing to kill his own people. It will only add to the death toll and may cause Assad and his allies to target US allies.
Said another way, the current path is the worst of both worlds - it is ineffective intervention with high potential for disastrous escalation.
-
Part of the problem is that what is being offered is not about removing Assad from power and making efforts to create a semi-democratic state(s). In order to avoid another Iraq, the POTUS and SecState are offering limited strikes as punishment for the use of Chemical Weapons.
The strikes will not help the FSA, they will not prevent Assad from continuing to kill his own people. It will only add to the death toll and may cause Assad and his allies to target US allies.
Said another way, the current path is the worst of both worlds - it is ineffective intervention with high potential for disastrous escalation.
+1.
And actual full intervention would be just as bad, and probably way worse.
-
It would no doubt be hard and contain all the challenges of Iraq and then some, but the political objective/desired end state would be clear.
I am not in favor of half measures, from health care or education reform to war. Those who embrace half measures are not interested in actually fixing the problems, but maintaining the status quo.
-
Of course not. People who spout off bravado about how little they care have A) never witnessed wartime deaths and B) have nothing to lose by acting tough. In reality, if they had to see somebody die in a sarin gas attack, they'd be humanitarians tomorrow.
Ironically, if it happened here, those same people would be shouting "terrorism" at the top of their lungs.
Is it a bad idea to start this mess? Absolutely. But adding the attitude of "fuck them, they're not my people" is not only tragic, it also makes you part of the problem.
Ok. I don't think I'm doing a tough guy act. I've known some fairly tough guys in my life, and, generally, they were not without feelings, at least as far as I was able to tell.
I strongly believe that being angry, or happy, or anything else, is not a good premise upon which to make decisions. If you have to sacrifice one life to save several, does feeling guilty help you? Does worrying about what the sacrificed person might feel help you? No. Five for one is a better situation than five lost. Five lives for one is the correct choice to maximize human well-being whether you feel happy, sad, indifferent, or angry. The only thing an emotional response will do is cloud your judgment.
The argument seems to be that I am wrong and bad for simply thinking it through and not feeling. I'm sorry. I don't feel. I can't seem to feel for them. And, when September 11th happened, as far as terrorist incidents go, I felt excitement, maybe a touch of anger, and not much else. I was excited to see something historic happening, and a little angry that someone had dared to attack us, including me by extension. I joined in the "outrage", because that's what it seems people do, for reasons that I have trouble fathoming, sometimes.
Is this cruel? Of course not. I didn't do anything. Yet people seem to become upset if you don't care along with them, as if that means I favor the other side. That's not the case. I simply don't approach a situation with this sort of contagious suffering and happiness the rest of you seem to - from my perspective - suffer from. But can you argue that a more dispassionate and calculated approach to the September 11th attacks would have been worse?
My point isn't how little I feel, it's that decisions should not be based on feelings. Events and actions should be treated, in my mind, like business decisions, or mathematical equations. You figure out what your goal is, you calculate the costs and contingencies, and then you execute. Maybe you need diplomacy and charm, maybe violence, maybe you need to sacrifice some things that you want less than your goal - whatever you need to do, you do. And then you have what you want.
But when I see something like the Syria situation, it looks to me like we are engaging in some sort of collective insanity. See, violence is expensive. On the personal level, it can often result in fines, jail, death, or, at the least, resentment and burned bridges. On the national level, it means millions and billions in money, countless hours of the lives of productive men, thousands to millions of deaths (permanent end to unique resources), and the destruction of even more vital infrastructure.
So, you give me a supposedly "moral" goal: try to reduce the suffering in the world, and maximize the happiness. Right, ok. And then you are upset when I dispassionately point out that any intervention in Syria likely results in higher costs then are reasonable? Not upset over my conclusion - I welcome the contest intellectually on a cost/benefit basis - but upset because I "don't care about the Syrians"?
And why is it worse to be gassed, as opposed to shot, or starved to death, or drowned, or any number of other deaths?
To me, you might well spend the money more profitably elsewhere. If you want to increase human happiness around the world, how about cracking down on the child sex trade? How about funding schools and businesses in Africa and Latin America? How about restoring America's flagging public education? How about taking some of the money devoted to the military, and using it to create an Infrastructure Corps to build the necessary public works for people to be happy and healthy? There are spots on this planet where digging a hole to dump sewage in will genuinely raise the standard of living. They have even been on the news, if that is what is important to you.
Yes, I rate very highly on any real test of sociopath/psychopath traits (lack of empathy, emotional shallowness, etc) I've cared to take. But I also rate low on tests for more narcissistic, sadistic, and anti-social traits. I'm not here to advocate murder - killing people seems like a genuinely unwise idea to me most of the time. I'm just looking at the goal you say you want, and concluding that your means for getting you there...won't. At least not as well as others could. I think that that's the issue, not whether I can feel for others.
-
I don't see the fuss about sociopaths. I hear they constitute like 1/5 of the population.
-
Of course not. People who spout off bravado about how little they care have A) never witnessed wartime deaths and B) have nothing to lose by acting tough. In reality, if they had to see somebody die in a sarin gas attack, they'd be humanitarians tomorrow.
Ironically, if it happened here, those same people would be shouting "terrorism" at the top of their lungs.
Is it a bad idea to start this mess? Absolutely. But adding the attitude of "fuck them, they're not my people" is not only tragic, it also makes you part of the problem.
I strongly believe that being angry, or happy, or anything else, is not a good premise upon which to make decisions. If you have to sacrifice one life to save several, does feeling guilty help you? Does worrying about what the sacrificed person might feel help you? No. Five for one is a better situation than five lost. Five lives for one is the correct choice to maximize human well-being whether you feel happy, sad, indifferent, or angry. The only thing an emotional response will do is cloud your judgment.
The argument seems to be that I am wrong and bad for simply thinking it through and not feeling. I'm sorry. I don't feel. I can't seem to feel for them. And, when September 11th happened, as far as terrorist incidents go, I felt excitement, maybe a touch of anger, and not much else. I was excited to see something historic happening, and a little angry that someone had dared to attack us, including me by extension. I joined in the "outrage", because that's what it seems people do, for reasons that I have trouble fathoming, sometimes.
Is this cruel? Of course not. I didn't do anything. Yet people seem to become upset if you don't care along with them, as if that means I favor the other side. That's not the case. I simply don't approach a situation with this sort of contagious suffering and happiness the rest of you seem to - from my perspective - suffer from. But can you argue that a more dispassionate and calculated approach to the September 11th attacks would have been worse?
My point isn't how little I feel, it's that decisions should not be based on feelings. Events and actions should be treated, in my mind, like business decisions, or mathematical equations. You figure out what your goal is, you calculate the costs and contingencies, and then you execute. Maybe you need diplomacy and charm, maybe violence, maybe you need to sacrifice some things that you want less than your goal - whatever you need to do, you do. And then you have what you want.
But when I see something like the Syria situation, it looks to me like we are engaging in some sort of collective insanity. See, violence is expensive. On the personal level, it can often result in fines, jail, death, or, at the least, resentment and burned bridges. On the national level, it means millions and billions in money, countless hours of the lives of productive men, thousands to millions of deaths (permanent end to unique resources), and the destruction of even more vital infrastructure.
So, you give me a supposedly "moral" goal: try to reduce the suffering in the world, and maximize the happiness. Right, ok. And then you are upset when I dispassionately point out that any intervention in Syria likely results in higher costs then are reasonable? Not upset over my conclusion - I welcome the contest intellectually on a cost/benefit basis - but upset because I "don't care about the Syrians"?
And why is it worse to be gassed, as opposed to shot, or starved to death, or drowned, or any number of other deaths?
Cold calculation is fine in certain instances. This is absolutely not one of them.
The situation in Syria is just part of the epidemic of global ignorance of basic human rights. The motive behind it all is just social control and profiting off of war, but the result is the systematic dampening of decency. All the problems you mentioned, environmental damage, education, marital rights, these are all clouded not by the use of empathy and emotional generosity, but by the suppression of them.
The Civil Rights movement wasn't based in the economic world, or numeric evidence, it was based on simple decency. The value that freedom has in our society. The majority of people are too afraid to say something, or they're convinced they shouldn't care about foreign issues, and that emotionlessness is what allows these kinds of decisions to continue being made.
Empathy is what causes the small amounts of generosity and quality of life in the world to exist. Cold calculation and "working by the numbers" is what allows slave labor in Dubai, the invasion of Grenada, Iran-Contra, and a million other tragedies.
-
Do you have evidence to prove that this is all about social control, profiting off of war, and that the 'man' is suppressing basic humanity? Cause I see more evidence, hard, cold facts, that show why we shouldn't go in versus evidence that we should go in to debt more for Syria.
-
Real rational pragmatics could also argue what might be one of the reasons behind the war : they want Assad government down, no matter what, to only have Iran left as a Shiite state that will be dealt with in time (even if Alawites are kindof like moderate shiites). They want Sunnis in place and have good relationships with Sunni states.
They could argue that it's the best approach in the region as far as it means defending "our interests". Anti war people are not the only one to hold the monopoly on rational thinking. The irrational thinking is just following the moral/ethics approach claimed by Westerners to their public opinion to make them agree imo.
By the way, I disagree with the war, and I consider myself a pure rational. But empathy is complementary as long as it is held in control and accounted for what it is, not ignored. It's here for a reason, and acknowledging its very existence is also being rational about it, as contradictory as it might sound.
-
Well, it's going to happen now. The Select committee has voted in favour and that's really all Obama needs to push the button.
I'm not sure what Putin's endgame is - usually the Russians and Chinese like to make the western powers act without a mandate from the UN so that they can feel free to do their shit in places like Chechnya and Taiwan without a UN mandate.
If he makes Obama publicly alter his stance on Syria as a result of the G20 meeting then he'll increase Russia's appearance of global relevance, that might be one of his goals. However Obama won't allow Putin to derail American intervention at this point - although he's likely to allow Putin to 'convince' him not to go all in, since he doesn't want to put boots on the ground anymore than Assad wants them there!
I would expect a limited target package of strictly military infrastructure. I would expect drone attacks on key personnel. I would a credible attempt to knock out Assad's chemical weapon infrastructure.
And, by the way, the evidence does sound compelling that Assad shelled his own people with Saarin gas. I don't know if the truth of that is actually relevant to anybody?
-
/me hopes that the U.S. actually does have secret giant mechs for the impending shit storm.
-
Always hard to tell. We only see what filters through.
US secret services say that they have proofs that Assad did it, France DGSE say that they also have proofs, and they argue that nobody except Assad could have had the means to use chemical weapons at such a scale, and certainly not rebels.
However, critics point that it's not real irrefutable proofs but rather a body of evidences.
But that is hardly relevant to me though. We are perfectly fine when it's Africans murdering each other by hundred of millions with machetes and a lot of similar cases of mass war casualties, and suddenly we are supposedly concerned about "a few" hundred death done by chemical gas.
Ninja edit : and funnily enough we had the same kind of media reports done in Syria recently where local Syrians were asked what they thought of the position of the country, like we had some when Bush administration decided to attack Iraq. Syrians say that they won't forget, even if we do nothing now, and that we made an enemy out of them. Back in Iraq, local Iraqi were saying the exact contrary, praising our decision not to go. It is rather telling.
-
Do you have evidence to prove that this is all about social control, profiting off of war, and that the 'man' is suppressing basic humanity? Cause I see more evidence, hard, cold facts, that show why we shouldn't go in versus evidence that we should go in to debt more for Syria.
If you can think of a financial or logical reason behind this action, something that actually improves life for either the US or Syria, I'd love to hear it.
Note that even if Assad is removed, the "rebels" will likely be the ones to fill the power vacuum. In Egypt, faced with a similar switch in leadership, the coup was successful. Within a month, there were hundreds of pro-Morsi citizens killed and thousands wounded. Rarely does removing a leader so suddenly actually benefit the people. So that's not it.
Damaging Syrian infrastructure doesn't benefit either side, logically. So that's not it.
As Lyn pointed out, our PR with the nation already sucks, so it doesn't matter if we "help" or not, it won't improve relations to throw a few missiles their way, nor will it improve our global image. So that's not it.
It benefits nobody. So why is it happening?
-
Well, it's going to happen now. The Select committee has voted in favour and that's really all Obama needs to push the button.
The administration argues that they don't need anyone's permission to do it. The Committee voted to take the resolution to the full Senate. The House is likely to tell Obama no for various reasons.
I would expect a limited target package of strictly military infrastructure. I would expect drone attacks on key personnel. I would a credible attempt to knock out Assad's chemical weapon infrastructure.
If drones strike at key personnel then the world should be terrified, because it would be a clear indication that the US is arming the descendants of the RQ-170 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_RQ-170_Sentinel). The Predator and Reaper do not operate well in a contested environment.
And, by the way, the evidence does sound compelling that Assad shelled his own people with Saarin gas. I don't know if the truth of that is actually relevant to anybody?
US secret services say that they have proofs that Assad did it, France DGSE say that they also have proofs, and they argue that nobody except Assad could have had the means to use chemical weapons at such a scale, and certainly not rebels
This really. The US and French are asking the world to trust them that Assad did this, but Russia has provided a rather detailed 100 page scientific report on the March chemical weapon attack that says it was rebels outside of Aleppo. (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/09/05/201268/russia-releases-100-page-report.html#.Uip6i8ZwpAo) The US and French have released far less actual evidence or analysis to back up the claims.
-
1. I think that the okay from the committee gives him X+Y days to operate without full senate approval. And, also, I think the jury is out on which way the Senate will jump for various reasons.
2. And how long after 'go time' would the airspace remain contested? 24 hours? 48?
3. And the Brits have proof from recovered pieces of the delivery platforms and the trajectory of the delivery that finger Syrian security forces so.... whelp...
In addition several experts have questioned the veracity of the Russian report - for example it claims that the West used Saarin in World War II when the West discovered the recipe for Saarin in the ruins of post-WWII Germany.
-
1. As I said, he (and all Presidents before him) would argue that he does not need Congress's permission to act. "The War Powers Resolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution) requires the President to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30 day withdrawal period, without an authorization of the use of military force or a declaration of war."
The vote is actually not needed for the President to take action.
2. There are a lot of factors impacting the available order of battle for the US forces necessary to achieve air dominance such that Reapers or Predators could operate as they have in Afghanistan and Iraq. (They may not actually be based anywhere close enough to conduct operations into Syria.) Air campaigns tend take some time, in Desert Storm the air war was around a month while the ground war was around 5 days. Operation Allied Force, the Kosovo air campaign was 78 days. OEF and OIF both did not have significant dedicated air campaigns that involved enemy counterair.
3. I am saying that the West needs to pony up a bit more than "trust us, we have evidence."
-
On 2th September the french defense minister has declassified some of the various DGSE reports on the gas attack.
It explains various historical facts at first and say that Syria is not part of the signatories of the Convention for the non use of chemical weapons (1993), and state that they are one of the countries with the most chemical arms in the world. Nothing really new.
Most of their stock is either Saarin and mustard (hundreds of tonnes), or VX gas (the deadliest, dozen of tonnes). Their arsenal is composed of SCUD B (300km range) and SCUD C (500km range), M600 (250-300 km), SS21 (70 km), air bombs (100 to 300 litres of gas), 302 and 320 mm rockets (50km).
Only Al Assad and the highest ranking of his clan are authorized to order chemical strikes.
The Syrian government would have violated the Geneva convention since 1968, and recent strikes would have taken place in the cities of Saraqeb the 29th April, and Jobar. Proofs of chemical use would be samples taken on bodies and soil. For Saraqeb it would have been carried through a chopper dropping small canisters filled with white smoke fumes.
August 21st with 41 videos analyzed would have shown another series of attacks in Ghuta East (Ain Tarma, Duma, Erbin, Jobar, Kfar Batna, Qas Alaa, Zamalka) and West (Mudamiyat Sham). 281 dead with 50% women and children.
From various humanitarian sources the count would go up to 1500 casualties.
They argue that considering the huge amount of video and other sources the rebel opposition would not be able to fake and control them all.
The attack of the 21st would have been carried through standard artillery shells and air bombing.
Inspectors would have been delayed several days before being able to access the area.
The attack would have been done to prevent at the time the rebel opposition to take an airforce airport near Damas.
Roughly..
-
Thank you, Lyn. I had not seen that France had declassified info, but it still does not excuse the US administration from hiding behind the "national means" excuse in making the case to the American public.
-
Well tbh the declassified thing is just a few official notes addressed to the government, not the real hard analyses... Not much to feed us unfortunately.
-
Well, things just got interesting courtesy of John Kerry and Russia.
My first thought when I heard the news was that there was an emergency face saving procedure going into action. This way, everybody wins. Assuming they can actually work together on it and it isn't just some big ploy, which is also possible.
-
Well, things just got interesting courtesy of John Kerry and Russia.
My first thought when I heard the news was that there was an emergency face saving procedure going into action. This way, everybody wins. Assuming they can actually work together on it and it isn't just some big ploy, which is also possible.
...what happened.
-
Very interesting analysis (http://www.policymic.com/articles/62177/you-think-obama-wants-to-strike-syria-you-re-wrong)
-
Well, things just got interesting courtesy of John Kerry and Russia.
My first thought when I heard the news was that there was an emergency face saving procedure going into action. This way, everybody wins. Assuming they can actually work together on it and it isn't just some big ploy, which is also possible.
...what happened.
A Russian proposal for Assad to transfer his forces chemical weapons to international control, thus taking them out of circulation.
-
Essentially, Kerry was asked what Syria could do to avert strikes, and he made a remark about complete chemical disarmament, before dismissing it as 'not going to happen'. A few hours later, the Russians made an offer to Assad to essentially do just this, with the remark that the Syrian government had 'welcomed' this offer. The US is officially holding a suspicious hard line, the UK is cautious but optimistic, not sure about elsewhere.
Like I said, perfect face-saving measure. Obama gets an out from his red line, Russia doesn't have to go headlong into major issues over an ally along with removing the possible future threat of chemical attacks, and Syria has a security council backer to guarantee fair treatment for disarmament. They of course have made no statement admitting that they have said weapons, but the fact that they 'welcomed' the offer means that either they do, or they're clawing for time - which is risky, given the implications of going along with the offer even in principle.
-
Yeah, just saw the headline from the BBC news feed but hadn't had a chance to read it yet. Will be interesting to see what happens.
-
If the US wants to derail this all they have to do is insist on:
1. Neutral UN inspection to confirm Assad has no more chem weapons.
2. Neutrally overseen destruction of the stockpiles Assad surrenders.
-
If the US wants to derail this all they have to do is insist on:
1. Neutral UN inspection to confirm Assad has no more chem weapons.
2. Neutrally overseen destruction of the stockpiles Assad surrenders.
And then
3. Ignore any reports to the effect that the weapons are gone.
or
3. Send in an attack before the inspectors/overseers have time to finish.
Y'know, like last time. But only if it is really needed to make the Pres look good.
-
Something interesting that was remarked on the BBC news I was listening to - Iran is on board and supporting the Russian initiative. The interesting part was some speculation by the guy talking that this was possibly the start of a new Iranian approach to foreign policy from the guy who replaced I'madinnerjacket - specifically, getting stuck in on the Syrian crisis as a prelude to warmer relations with the west.
Meanwhile, we've got the theoretical situation of the French and US playing good cop/bad cop. The French proposal of harsh punishments for failure and all that has been suggested to be just the hardline point to start negotiating from, and will rapidly soften - but the US has history of ignoring the UN and kicking peoples' teeth in, hence the looming shadow of bad cop without the need for heavy handed UN stuff. Again, BBC hypotheses.
Still, I'm actually feeling vaguely positive about this whole mess for the first time in... well, ever.
-
Still, I'm actually feeling vaguely positive about this whole mess for the first time in... well, ever.
Same here. Hopefully the situation resolves peacefully and quickly. ::knocks on wood::