Print

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

[Saede Riordan]

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  - 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.

[Lyn Farel]

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.

[Logan Fyreite]

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.

[Seriphyn]

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.

[Morwen Lagann]

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.

[orange]

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...

[orange]

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."

[Seriphyn]

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.

[orange]

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.   

[Katrina Oniseki]

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.

[Saede Riordan]

Who other then the US government, and specifically the government, actually thinks this is a good idea?

[orange]

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.

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.

[Saede Riordan]

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.

[Vikarion]

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.

[Nicoletta Mithra]

“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.