Print

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

[Vincent Pryce]

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.

[Nmaro Makari]

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.

[Veyako Koyama]

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.

[orange]

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, by passing national laws that provide justification for potential future action.  For example, the PRC passed an 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.  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.

[Vikarion]

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.

[orange]

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.

[Karmilla Strife]

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.

[Repentence Tyrathlion]

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.

[Karmilla Strife]

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.

[Akrasjel Lanate]

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".

[Repentence Tyrathlion]

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.

[Karmilla Strife]

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.

[Vikarion]

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.

[Karmilla Strife]

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.

[Vikarion]

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.