Syria: US Involvement

So it short, someone is going to get screwed hard. And whether we go left or right with this, we end up looking like assholes.

Alethea Thompson wrote: 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".

I'm not saying all cops are bad, because they're not. Like the video of the police officer defending the rights of some of those activists in that airport (I forget where, but it went viral). And also that other officer who defended that man who was being beat by another officer when he was clearly not resisting (another viral video). But the defender lost his job and the corrupt official had a few days of unpaid suspension. Is that fair? It may not be all police, but there is enough to cause concern for the country.

ferreire580 wrote: So it short, someone is going to get screwed hard. And whether we go left or right with this, we end up looking like assholes.

not necessarily:

"A Jedi knows how inaction can have as great an impact as action and how some of the greatest lessons are self-taught. To be a victor is also taking that victory from those you protect. A Jedi intervenes only when a Jedi's intervention is required."

Just replace "Jedi" with your nationality, done deal

Rickie The Grey wrote: The US is being a bully.

In this case, both at the request of many Western nations and the Syrian civilians.

That's what I'm getting at. Everybody wants to paint the U.S. as a bad guy for getting involved in foreign affairs militarily. Yell "Team America: World Police" at us on international forums. Tell us not to flex our military might in the quest for imperialism, and stay out of everyone else's business.

Yet how many interviews and reports with Syrian civilians after these attacks have directly requested U.S. intervention? How many grieving fathers have called the U.S. (and Obama, directly) to action to avenge the death of their sleeping children? Suddenly, we don't seem like such a bad option then. People who protested in the streets about our "conquest" of Iraq had previously cried out for our aid. We've been protested against in Syria, and now that their gov't has been caught, red-handed, using chemical weapons on innocents, we're asked to jump in.

This double standard has to quit. Either we are bullies for toppling regimes that destroy innocent lives on a whim, or we're saviors. You can't have it both ways. Either tell us to butt out, and handle your problems by yourself, or stop dragging our name through the mud.

Also, fyi: non-intervention has never worked for the United States as a military policy because people won't leave us alone. The last time we tried to stay out of global politics, it ended in the world's first nuclear attacks.

ren wrote: I wasn't judging. Simply stated some simple facts.

I never said you were exercising judgement. Those "simple facts" you stated are not ones to be considered lightly or simply, even if true. If I cut a man's arm off, that would be called a simple, atrocious fact (if true). But does that reveal that I might have cut it off to save him from dying of infection? No. Simple facts, indeed.

ren wrote: I used "you" after you used "we".

You were responding directly to me. If I say, "hey you!" and point right at you while you're in a group of people, are you really going to think I mean the whole group, just because you said "we" about something right before that? Let's be realistic here. Obviously, your words conveyed a tone you didn't (entirely?) intend. If that doesn't matter to you, then so be it. Either way, I'm not going to talk about it any further.

ren wrote: facts are:
-The US tested the effects of nuclear weapons on its own soldiers
-The US has kidnapped its own civilians so as to experiment on them with dangerous chemical compounds.

facts are:
-I like cheese.
-The capital of Nebraska is Lincoln.

What do any of these facts have to do with the original topic of discussion? Nothing. The Syrians didn't test nuclear or chemical weapons at all, on soldiers or civilians. They wantonly attacked using chemical weapons as a glorified form of crowd control to kill hundreds upon hundreds of their own citizens.

I would like you to produce evidence to me that the combined total of actual American deaths from any American nuclear testing or CIA kidnappings was any higher than even 30. And both of those things, if true, happened decades ago. I'm sure Britain has never done anything unsavory to its own citizenry. How is what you've said to me relevant to this modern consideration in a way that supports your position? The U.S. has learned enough from its mistakes to know that this kind of thing cannot be allowed to continue. Like I said before:

"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."

Please read what I write before you disagree with me. Otherwise, your words just come off seeming contentiously sidetracking. I say this with it in mind that you probably do not intend to convey such an impression.

ren wrote: I happen to believe these two acts do not warrant the invasion of the US by some significantly more powerful country. I'm pretty sure most Americans would agree with that.

Who said anything about invasion? Launching missiles into Syria at strategic targets is not invasion. Look up the definition of invasion, especially as it relates to "occupation", and stop making straw men. The whole consideration at hand here is that there are no other countries significantly more powerful than the U.S., and that is why we are examining if it is right for America, as the most powerful, to step in and police such things as this. And it's not like we'd be alone at it anyway; other countries would be invited and welcome to join us in our efforts to prevent WMD atrocities.

You should examine the following types of logical fallacies and try to see how they might relate to your most recent statements to me:

Straw man
Tu quoque
Cherry picking
Composition
Ad Hominem (I mean toward the U.S., not toward me)

I don't see you offering any alternatives as to who should do the policing, just complaining about how unworthy America is for the job based on a couple of isolated, limited special cases, and about what a bully America is. I would say the real bullies are the leaders gassing their own people for rebelling. Would you prefer to simply let peacetime chemical weapon use happen? If not, then what? Standing around assuming it'll all just work itself out, diplomatically or through fresh voting, accomplishes nothing. Bringing up old history to try to smear America doesn't help either.

The only solution I've seen you make mention of is ensuring fair elections. That may not be possible in that specific country and regime, and it's not going to help fast enough to prevent another such use of chemical weapons unless somebody first puts fear into the hearts of the Syrian government that there will be dire consequences if they do it again. As Jestor said earlier, a show of force can often be a tool of diplomatic resolution (and I would add, an agency for positive change in general) if our motivations are collectively in the right place.

ferreire580 wrote: So in short, someone is going to get screwed hard. And whether we go left or right with this, we end up looking like assholes.

Perhaps, in the short term. But this is a matter of choosing between what is right, and what is easy. The easiest thing would be to do nothing, to wait on some imaginary other factor to bring resolution, while potentially hundreds more people get "self-taught" by being nerve-gassed to death. The choice is pretty simple, in that light.

Some individuals who learn that inaction can have as great an impact as action, soon find themselves with a hammer of complacency to which the whole world starts to look like a nail. Courageous compassion is the key.

If the Syrian people are calling for our help, especially about something against which they have no defense, like nerve gas, then we should help them any way we can, as fast as we can. Period. Regardless of what it makes us look like to some people in the short term.

Those who don't already know, should look up all the various wonderful effects that nerve gases have on the human body, how indiscriminate such agents are, and how easily they can poison bystanders and emergency responders even through mere skin contact.

Let's dispense with the 'World Police' moniker. Police are, generally speaking, a disinterested party charged with keeping the peace and enforcing law. The US keeps the peace when it suits, and enforces laws for its benefit. Just like any other country. The difference here is order of magnitude.

The US has plenty of vested interest in seeing the Al-Asad family out of power and a more amenable leader in its seat. Do not oversimplify our motivations to Global Sheriff. We have plenty of dogs in that fight over in Syria. As callous as it might both sound and be, sometimes the dramas of global powers are performed on smaller stages. Most times to the playhouse's chagrin.

Most people judge high-level decision makers with a disturbing level of dilettantism. There are certainly places in the workd I don't want to go - Syria being high on the list. But if the call comes, even I don't feel I have the knowledge to declare moral authority on the situation or those we elected to deal with it. What I DO know is that there are only bad options at this point - and I envy no one weighing the scales. Pros and cons, goods and evils match eachother pace for pace with hundreds of thousands hanging in the balance. Even more, considering the second- and third-order effects. What most people are expressing when they spout rote opinions on ANY complicated situation are interests. Interests are very real - and compete with every other interest out there. I caution against KNOWING what *should* happen in Syria. There are precedents for any number of solutions, and in every case the US and anyone else acting or not acting could be labeled a hypocrite or a bully by SOMEONE.

That said, is the US a lone white knight tossed into a pit of snakes so it can fight for truth, justice, and the American Way? The last one, always - and the other two when it can. It's all shades of gray. All we can really do - just like those who make the decisions around here - is inform ourselves as much as possible and try to sleep at night with what we've done. And I do mean 'we' on both a global and personal scale. No snowflake in an avalanche ever feels responsible, right?

I applaud and advocate for what is going on in this thread. I really do. Thanks for tackling a difficult topic.

Here are a few of my thoughts on Syria:

Drawn-out engagements historically favor the insurgent - and entropy.

I do believe that if the rebels topple the Asad government, his supporters will assume an insurgent role of their own. Rinse and repeat cycle. It'll get really, really ugly.

The US stayed its (overt) hand for a myriad of reasons ranging from legalities to lack of will. We definitely didn't like the Al-Asads, but we couldn't find a group we were openly willing to support. The US really does consider compatible ideology when getting in bed with potential partners. I won't say *everything* hinges on it, but compatible ideology does factor into the level of support we offer, and under what guises we do so. It becomes a matter of "How bad do we really want this?" CBRN (Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear) threats change the scales considerably and really shake up legalities. They cut a lot of red tape on that front - and string up a bit of new.

If we do start launching missiles from carrier battle groups, who do you think they will be burning for? If the reports are true, it was the insurgents who upped the ante into CBRN. That's a bit of a head-scratcher. There is the potential justification for the US, UN, or whatever coalition of the willing to begin actioning targets or applying more and more pressure in other ways to break what is an accelerating downward spiral. You betcha that everyone there will have an agenda. And those crying out against involvement have the same, only executed in a different way - one no less deadly if the spiral continues.

My hope is that everyone involved exercises as much restraint as possible - and due diligence - before deciding to use violence as a tool. That, and any national interest pursued in its application coincides with the interests of the Syrian people.

Syria and poison gas: Will we ever confirm what happened?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2013/08/27/f-syria-halabja.html

Just like Iraq.

FraterDavid wrote:

ren wrote: I wasn't judging. Simply stated some simple facts.

I never said you were exercising judgement. Those "simple facts" you stated are not ones to be considered lightly or simply, even if true. If I cut a man's arm off, that would be called a simple, atrocious fact (if true). But does that reveal that I might have cut it off to save him from dying of infection? No. Simple facts, indeed.

ren wrote: I used "you" after you used "we".

You were responding directly to me. If I say, "hey you!" and point right at you while you're in a group of people, are you really going to think I mean the whole group, just because you said "we" about something right before that? Let's be realistic here. Obviously, your words conveyed a tone you didn't (entirely?) intend. If that doesn't matter to you, then so be it. Either way, I'm not going to talk about it any further.

ren wrote: facts are:
-The US tested the effects of nuclear weapons on its own soldiers
-The US has kidnapped its own civilians so as to experiment on them with dangerous chemical compounds.

facts are:
-I like cheese.
-The capital of Nebraska is Lincoln.

What do any of these facts have to do with the original topic of discussion? Nothing. The Syrians didn't test nuclear or chemical weapons at all, on soldiers or civilians. They wantonly attacked using chemical weapons as a glorified form of crowd control to kill hundreds upon hundreds of their own citizens.

I would like you to produce evidence to me that the combined total of actual American deaths from any American nuclear testing or CIA kidnappings was any higher than even 30. And both of those things, if true, happened decades ago. I'm sure Britain has never done anything unsavory to its own citizenry. How is what you've said to me relevant to this modern consideration in a way that supports your position? The U.S. has learned enough from its mistakes to know that this kind of thing cannot be allowed to continue. Like I said before:

"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."

Please read what I write before you disagree with me. Otherwise, your words just come off seeming contentiously sidetracking. I say this with it in mind that you probably do not intend to convey such an impression.

ren wrote: I happen to believe these two acts do not warrant the invasion of the US by some significantly more powerful country. I'm pretty sure most Americans would agree with that.

Who said anything about invasion? Launching missiles into Syria at strategic targets is not invasion. Look up the definition of invasion, especially as it relates to "occupation", and stop making straw men. The whole consideration at hand here is that there are no other countries significantly more powerful than the U.S., and that is why we are examining if it is right for America, as the most powerful, to step in and police such things as this. And it's not like we'd be alone at it anyway; other countries would be invited and welcome to join us in our efforts to prevent WMD atrocities.

You should examine the following types of logical fallacies and try to see how they might relate to your most recent statements to me:

Straw man
Tu quoque
Cherry picking
Composition
Ad Hominem (I mean toward the U.S., not toward me)

I don't see you offering any alternatives as to who should do the policing, just complaining about how unworthy America is for the job based on a couple of isolated, limited special cases, and about what a bully America is. I would say the real bullies are the leaders gassing their own people for rebelling. Would you prefer to simply let peacetime chemical weapon use happen? If not, then what? Standing around assuming it'll all just work itself out, diplomatically or through fresh voting, accomplishes nothing. Bringing up old history to try to smear America doesn't help either.

The only solution I've seen you make mention of is ensuring fair elections. That may not be possible in that specific country and regime, and it's not going to help fast enough to prevent another such use of chemical weapons unless somebody first puts fear into the hearts of the Syrian government that there will be dire consequences if they do it again. As Jestor said earlier, a show of force can often be a tool of diplomatic resolution (and I would add, an agency for positive change in general) if our motivations are collectively in the right place.

All I did was complain about double standards. I actually mentioned NATO countries (not the US specifically), which developed and used chemical weapons.

You then claimed the US had clean hands: I replied americans wouldnt like it if their country were invaded over the deployment of nuclear weapons to see their effects on their own soldiers, or the CIA kidnapping and testing drugs on US citizens.
Similarly I do not think Syrians would like it if their country were invaded (or bombarded > that's actually worse in my book) over the use (by either side) of chemical weapons.

No fallacy, no judgement, no shit given. Well, not on my side anyway.

I never claimed america was a bully either, and I particularly despise people who put words in my mouth, so consider this your last warning.

I invite the Councillors to examine this post and provide feedback.

ren wrote: All I did was complain about double standards. I actually mentioned NATO countries (not the US specifically), which developed and used chemical weapons.

And I responded that it's not a matter of double standards, but of lessons learned the hard way.

ren wrote: You then claimed the US had clean hands

Where did I say this? Who is putting words into whose mouth now? I specifically said:

"we have never officially used chemical weapons against our own people, and certainly not against American civilians, rebellious or otherwise."

In no way is this saying the U.S.'s hands are clean. What people do without official sanction is in a whole different category. And even then, like I said, that was decades ago, and we have learned a lot from our mistakes. I also said:

"The motivations of the U.S. in times of war have not always been virtuous or above-board." And,
"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."

Again, this makes it evident that you are not reading the fullness of what I write before responding. The only difference is, I'm not a Councillor so I can't threaten you with a "last warning" for simply defending yourself and expressing your opinion. I realize you said that it was because of putting words into your mouth, but it appears we are both guilty of that; I address the reasoning behind my instance of it, below.

While we're on that topic, what do you mean by "last warning" anyway? That you'll ban me? And for what? What should I avoid doing to keep from being banned by you? This makes me not even want to post anything else on any of these forums, because you might be reading and it'll rub you the wrong way and you'll ban me without recourse, like I'm some troll. I thought that these forums were for discussion, even if heated at times. If someone can show me how I have personally attacked you in this thread, then that's different.

I admit that sometimes I put more fire behind my words than I probably should. Nobody's perfect. (Believe it or not, I am actually working on tempering it.) You'll probably ban me even just for writing this post, but I am trying to operate with courage, as befits a Jedi. Hopefully there are those here who can forgive me for this, if it is a shortcoming.

If ren is being reasonable in his reaction and in his final warning, I invite the other Councillors to say so, and I will forever hold my peace voluntarily. Otherwise, I request that the warning be lifted, or at least its finality. I don't want that looming over my head every time I feel like responding to something on here.

ren wrote: I never claimed america was a bully either, and I particularly despise people who put words in my mouth, so consider this your last warning.

I'm sorry to hear (by implication) that you despise me now. It was not my intention to put words into your mouth, ren. Granted, you did not explicitly say that the U.S. is a bully. However, Rickie the Grey did, and you gave a Thank You to his post:

Post #116521

So does that mean you really didn't support what he was saying? A Thank You sends a message just as much as any custom-typed text. I notice that you have so far not denied feeling the same way, but instead that you resent me for drawing an understandable conclusion and then speaking plainly about it. If this is not really how you feel, then I apologize for being fooled by appearances. At the very least, I apologize for stating it as though you had actually said it, which you did not.

ren wrote: Similarly I do not think Syrians would like it if their country were invaded (or bombarded > that's actually worse in my book) over the use (by either side) of chemical weapons.

That is a good point to make (about bombardment being potentially worse than invasion). I suppose it depends entirely on the extent and duration of the bombardment. Living in Britain, you have a unique perspective on this (compared to an American, anyway) because Britain was bombarded, but never invaded, by the Nazis. I hadn't thought of that, specifically, but let me ask: Do you really feel like it would have been better to have been invaded by Nazis and have them controlling every aspect of your life? Personally, I would rather be bombed into oblivion, if I had to choose.

ren wrote: No fallacy, no judgement, no shit given. Well, not on my side anyway.

Anything I could say in response to any of this quote would just sound argumentative and be fruitless, so I will refrain.

Fraternally in the Force,
-David