Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Katrina Oniseki]

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.

[Felix Rasker]

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.

[Lyn Farel]

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.

[Anslol]

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.

[Pieter Tuulinen]

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.

[Anslol]

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.

[Pieter Tuulinen]

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.

[Anslol]

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

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

[Lyn Farel]

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.

[Silas Vitalia]

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.

[Pieter Tuulinen]

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.

[Anslol]

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.

[Pieter Tuulinen]

A MOAB will burn Saarin gas to nothing.

[Anslol]

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.

[Lyn Farel]

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.