Syria: US Involvement

"And yet, police are known for being corrupt, using their given authority for their own agendas, planting situations involving criminals or criminal activity to shape a scenario to their benefit... for which the US has that very same history of doing." -Proteus

BOSNIA

Also, some police can be corrupt, but the majority are not. The same is true of some volunteers. I know of a K-9 handler (Search and Rescue, volunteer) which planted evidence and messed up a few cases as a result because she wanted her dog to look good for the authorities. Volunteer, non-profit volunteer, her own group- not affiliated with a government run organization. People in general have the ability to be corrupt- it has nothing to do with their job description or what organization they are affiliated with. It's just the individual (which may or may not be part of a corrupt group of individuals as well).

i am against any further usage of US military forces not directly tied to an invasion of the US or associated territories. but if congress/DoD/the president want another war, then they can gear up and ship out. i did my time, and it wont be me.

seems that the aforementioned parties get all war-hungry mostly because they have no skin in the game.

as usual, the onion is painfully on point in their satire:
http://www.theonion.com/articles/experts-point-to-long-glorious-history-of-successf,33642/?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=SocialMarketing&utm_campaign=LinkPreview:1:Default

All I have to say is that our involvement could lead to big problems for the world. Syria has allies just like everyone else, like Iran. This could be a domino effect of numerous countries getting involved against each other. Welcome to WW3 people.


On a side note, it is usually individuals with POWER who become corrupt. This includes police, judges, politicians and even volunteers with a false sense of power. It isn't the person so much as it is the power. Even the best of people can be twisted into darkness. I know a cop from my hometown that was a very nice and respectable of people. But over the years he has become menacing and downright disgusting in his behavior. He straight up goes out of his way to arrest people for what can only be called trumped up charges. Example, Jaywalking: when you accidentally step off into the street, Public intoxication: because you walk funny (seriously did this to a mentally challenged kid, didn't even do a breathalyzer), He violates others 2nd amendment rights: arrests for open carry (which is legal), Violates 4th amendments rights: with illegal searches and seizures of private property. All of these and more have happened, and they have been reported. But nothing is done. That is the corruption of those with power. It took a very nice man, and turned him into a monster. It isn't just here though, it is everywhere.

The only correct kind of intervention is one that sides with law and order (usually the existing government), but at the same time will also insure that the will(freedom) of the people is respected. So we're talking heavily controlled but fair elections (after prior removal of any unfair laws/cops/whatever that would prevent people from voting the way they want to), and some mechanisms to prevent corruption. That's it.

Send me the case files of each of these incidents and I'll tell you if he was in the right or in the wrong. As it stands, I only have your word to go off of. Furthermore, I want you to show me how exactly it is that one cop equals the whole lot of us (although I am not anymore, I include myself in the list as I would any former cop). Power does not corrupt- lack of discipline has the potential to lead to corruption- which lies solely on the individual's accountability.

Too many people want to place blame where the blame is undue- in the end we are building a world where no one is held accountable for themselves because of phrases like "Power corrupts" or " Money corrupts".

Connor Lidell wrote: You'd like it to not be the world's police force. But, track records show our vigilanteous efforts are not unrecorded in the history books.

"vigilanteous" lol, I like that.

Rickie The Grey wrote: Are you saying the US should be the worlds police force?

If you read what Connor actually wrote, he gives no indication for such a preference. He simply expressed that what you initially said was what you would like to be true, not what has been historically the case. It would have been a more accurate expression of opinion to say, "The U.S. should not be the world's police force."

In any event, the world at present does not have an effective official police force. Yet, it is ever becoming more of a global village. Those with the most power and influence, if they are to act as full humans and not animals, have a moral obligation to make sure that basic human rights are protected, regardless of whether it is within our own country or not. Mercy (aka tolerance) is only half of Compassion; the other half is Severity. Of course, we should always see to our own problems first, but there are many cases in history where other parts of the world are in much more dire need of attending to than ourselves (i.e. cases of impending genocide, terror threats, use of weapons of mass destruction, etc).

Granted, exposure to the experience of power can and does corrupt. But that is based on correctable weaknesses within us that interfere with our ability to fully express that power in a positive way. Power itself is just a tool, like any other, and we are filled with it. It surrounds us every day, without corrupting anything. "All the Power that ever was or will be is here now."

The motivations of the U.S. in times of war have not always been virtuous or above-board. But find me one country or government who can unequivocally say otherwise about themselves? People are going to be people, which can include greed and fear and bias. All we can do is try our best to do what is right, regardless of how it makes us look to the rest of the world, and regardless of what opportunities for exploitation it opens up for the morally decrepit. Joseph Campbell referred to it as "leaning toward the light."

Rickie The Grey wrote: All the more reason to MYOB.

Minding one's own business works sometimes, and in some cases is actually the perfect solution. But in other instances, it is absolutely necessary to step in to protect those who cannot (as opposed to "will not") protect themselves from the predations of whomever may be entrenched in power over them at the time. This sort of action is a perfectly natural reflection of universal forces operating through us according to the principle of dissolution, to break down old and worn out forms so that new life may thrive where before there was only limitation, suffering, and death tolls. However, this process is often painful. But the alternative, to do nothing, allows those worn-out forms to gall and chafe us.

For example, the U.S. did not initially get involved in World War II. Most American citizens at the time believed it was not their affair. How much greater were the deadly shenanigans that the Nazis got away with because of that fact? And still it eventually came around to bite us in the ass, when we got bombed at Pearl Harbor, not to mention all the U-boat attacks prior to that.

And what if we had continued to choose "MYOB"? You and I would be speaking in German today, that's what, or we'd be dead. And if not dead, then probably a servant to Nazis, and witness to goodness-only-knows-what accelerated atrocities. Admittedly, that is pretty much a worst-case scenario, but that's why discernment is so important. Any wound can become gangrenous if allowed to fester for too long, and then it becomes a systemic problem.

The point is that we are all connected, and what affects one of us badly enough will end up affecting all of us badly. The world has become too small and "globalized" for us to be able any more to ignore some of the crime that certain dictators or religious zealots try to get away with. And who better to respond with the authority of power than the U.S.? Somebody needs to do it. The most important part is our willingness to take action, as individuals and as a nation.

Is this me saying the U.S. has always been perfectly justified and honorable in its choices of theaters and targets? Absolutely not; none of us is perfect. But we, as a race, are learning. Slowly... and painfully. Frivolous warmongering takes a terrible toll. But we are maturing. You need only look around you, or examine history, to find subtle (and not so subtle) signs that this is true. Anything negative that may arise, up to and including World War III, as a result of pursuing what we feel compelled to do by the light within us, will be necessary to our development, and unavoidable. ...If it even comes down to such a war, which it very well may not. We must not allow fear to prevent justice by ruling us.

Fraternally in the Force,
-David

I am not up to speed on the Syria thing, but I catch headlines in passing. If Syrian people are using chemical weapons on Syrian people, what will they do to anyone that attempts to stop them?

I am not advocating for a "sit back and watch" mentality, but leaping before you look usually does not end well.

I find the chemical/nuclear weapon arguments rather poor. We (let's say NATO) have developed, used, and sold those weapons. It's really two-faced of us to blame others for doing the same.

Archon wrote: If Syrian people are using chemical weapons on Syrian people, what will they do to anyone that attempts to stop them?

It is easier for an army (such as that of the U.S.), properly equipped for modern warfare, to avoid the effects of chemical weapons. We have automated drones, smart bombs, long-range missiles, etc. not to mention advanced CBRN hazard gear. I doubt the Syrian rebels can match any of that.

As for the question of whether to supply them with weapons or not... that seems to be going a bit far, at least at this juncture. I would have to know what we would expect to accomplish by doing that, if not a regime change, since our most recent statements are saying that the U.S. is not seeking such a change as yet.

ren wrote: I find the chemical/nuclear weapon arguments rather poor. We (let's say NATO) have developed, used, and sold those weapons. It's really two-faced of us to blame others for doing the same.

Eh, to be in politics is to surround oneself with hypocrites, ofttimes.

Still... we have never officially used chemical weapons against our own people, and certainly not against American civilians, rebellious or otherwise. Perhaps some very few of us have used them, under cover of darkness, so to speak, and we hold such rogue elements accountable whenever we can. The U.S. as a whole is viscerally against use of chemical and biological weapons. Such warfare, especially against citizenry, almost ranks up there with cannibalism, to our way of thinking.

It is exactly because we have learned through their use how terrible that chemical and biological weapons can be, that we are so vigilant against their use by others today. The mistakes of our past do not justify allowing similar atrocities by others in the present. Again, regardless of how it may appear to the rest of the world (hypocritical to you, in this case), the U.S. -- and all free nations -- must strive to do the best they can, to protect the innocent and the defenseless. I don't think we've fallen so far that it is truly a matter of "do as I say, not as I do."

Now, if it becomes evident that we are continuing to use them while stopping others from doing so, then that will have to be revisited by the people of the United States. Ultimately, the military is accountable to politicians, and politicians are accountable to We the People.

I think Saudi Arabia was supplying the Rebels their weapons in Syria, at least initially. Turkey seems to have a staunch position on this too.

In regards to a response to the civil war... it's not just the USA though, it will be a few NATO nations and perhaps even others. The UN seems to like using its member nations for ground security in contested areas if the threat is low, so when the threat is high the next level up should be No Fly Zone's. It should keep other nation's out of the conflict, but these in theory should stop the disproportionate effects of air power against ground forces. Also, importantly, it allows airborne intelligence assets to observe the area in high detail. Knowledge is power and an important tool in diplomacy. So much detail that if they'd been in place enforcing a NFZ that determining who launched the suspected chemical attack would be known by direct observation.... if it was indeed launched at all. Though I think the NFZ's would have to distinct from directly providing support to either side, which is what happened in Libya. It did not help the case for a NFZ when Russia recently sold them their most advanced integrated Surface-Air Missile system. It wont make too much difference if NATO attacks, but it makes a NFZ impossible.

I'd wager that Putin is trying to do to the USA what the USA did to the USSR in the 80's... exhaust their money on military activities and cripple the economy. Since the USSR spent so much trying to keep pace with the US military developments it unbalanced their economy. I dont like politics though.

The other issue is non-proliferation of WMD. WMD's are a relatively new thing, and so the past is one thing, and rather irrelevant, but these day's AFAIK the USA is against proliferation of WMD in all forms. If any country is acquiring them it's a future risk so stopping them seems the ideal, if a countries got them then its a present risk so containment and destruction of the WMD seems the ideal. If someone is using them, then who is, and I guess it would make sense to stop them. We do not want a WMD arms race again and the best way to start one is to have people using them as weapons.