Print

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

[Pieter Tuulinen]

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.

[Vikarion]

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).

[Pieter Tuulinen]

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.

[orange]

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.

[Vikarion]

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.

[Silas Vitalia]

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.

[Anslol]

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.

[Repentence Tyrathlion]

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.   , 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.

[Steffanie Saissore]

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).

[Syagrius]

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 %.

[Tiberious Thessalonia]

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.

[Nicoletta Mithra]

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...

[Vikarion]

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.

[orange]

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.

[Vikarion]

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.