Syria: US Involvement

I specifically said:

"we have never officially used chemical weapons against our own people"

To which I replied the CIA abducted US civilians on US soil and experimented on them with mind altering drugs for the purpose of establishing mind-control, ruining quite a few brains in the process. Which is chemical warfare on (own) civilian population. It was official, done by US government officials on behalf of the US government, itself established by US citizens. Can't be more official than that. And they did it for quite a few years, not exactly an isolated event.

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?

I give thank yous for reasons which are my own, and they only mean that "thank you". In his post, Rickie said a couple of smart things, and I thanked him for sharing them with the rest of us.

One of the smart things he said was that not many people seemed touched by this attack and that it would be completely idiotic for Assad to launch such an attack. It would seem that this attack (if carried out by assad forces) is not "official" then, right?

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.

My country was partially invaded by the germans, our allies turned on us and sank our ships, and while these arent exactly personal circumstances, members of my family were fighting and were made POWs. They preferred the german way of handling things than the US bombings as they were less likely to be killed by the germans than by the US bombs. My grandmother (living in occupied territory) saw only one german during the entire war.

What should I avoid doing to keep from being banned by you?

you can argue and challenge (ask wescli), but don't do it dirty.

My argument was (and still is) that NATO nations, which do have a lot of blood on their hands when it comes to chemical weapons and WMDs, have no right to interfere in this conflict for the simple reason that if we found ourselves in the same situation, we wouldn't want significantly more powerful countries to get involved.
I even cited the relevant jedi maxim.

The solution I offered was to take control of the existing structure, correct its flaws if necessary, and find out which side is favoured by the population the non-bombardment/invasion-way. It could be done (And I know soldiers would be proud of taking part in something like this) but they don't do it, for the reasons Rickie mentioned.

Your arguments were directed at me, not at my arguments. We have rules against that.

ren wrote: We have rules against that.

:blink: We have rules?!?! :ohmy: :woohoo: :silly:

F.A.Q.
Article 29
Offensive Language and Swearing (and general abuse of other members)

TotJO is a place for spiritual enlightenment, self discovery and discussion of many varied and wide ranging topics. Here at TotJO we debate arguments not personalities and ideas instead of people.

Everyone makes mistake and it is not simply a case of one breach of the rules and your account is suspended.The people for whom this rule applies are those who are persistent and do so in a flagrant manner, even after unofficial and official warnings about it.

It demonstrates negative traits in an individual namely disrespect for fellow users and lack of control of oneself. 'Heat of the moment' is not a viable excuse, for as Jedi one must possess more control.

So, please think about what you have typed before sending. Show your respect and consideration for your fellow Temple members by simply maintaining the self-restraint to not swear. As it is much easier to control this behaviour when typing than it is in verbal conversation, there really is no acceptable excuse.

Post what you think is acceptable for an 8 year old to read (be it your own child or another) as this is in fact a family, and public, forum after all. If in doubt, leave it out.

Please note also that swearing is not the only way to offend. One can be just as demeaning and derogatory without resorting to swear words. These cases are as equally inappropriate and are covered under the same regulation on the forum.

Often time’s people do not like me reminding others of the rules, but right now I am. Here at TotJO we debate arguments not personalities and ideas instead of people.

ren wrote: you can argue and challenge (ask wescli), but don't do it dirty.

How did I do anything in a dirty way? I honestly have no idea what you're referring to. I said a curse word once, and so did you. But I did not take personal offense at it, and I did not detect that you took any personal offense at my usage either. (I think I also said "asshole" once, but again, not about you.) So... what, then? I do also intend to speak with Clint, but I would like to hear from you what you're talking about.

ren wrote: My argument was (and still is) that NATO nations, which do have a lot of blood on their hands when it comes to chemical weapons and WMDs, have no right to interfere in this conflict for the simple reason that if we found ourselves in the same situation, we wouldn't want significantly more powerful countries to get involved.

That's not a reason for the U.S. not to get involved. NO country likes being interfered with by another country, regardless of the specifics. So that is irrelevant in the consideration of whether the countries with the most ability to intervene should do so. You still haven't answered my question about who else, if not the U.S.? It is the most powerful and the most capable of intervening with the fewest unnecessary casualties and damage.

ren wrote: The solution I offered was to take control of the existing structure, correct its flaws if necessary, and find out which side is favoured by the population the non-bombardment/invasion-way. It could be done (And I know soldiers would be proud of taking part in something like this) but they don't do it, for the reasons Rickie mentioned.

How would you recommend that anyone go about "taking control of the existing structure" without invasion or bombardment?

ren wrote: Your arguments were directed at me, not at my arguments. We have rules against that.

I am quite aware that we have rules here against that. Of course my statements were directed to you, because I was responding to you. But in what way do you feel that I directed my arguments at you? I did not call you any names, nor attack you personally. Each time, I was addressing the arguments you laid forth. Can you give me any examples to the contrary, please?

A comment in a reddit thread that almost perfectly encapsulates my view on this pending tragedy:

' These people are not our friends, we have no treaty with them, and no matter what we do or whose side we take, they will never be our friends or show the slightest appreciation.

This is a Middle East problem of dramatic proportion, acknowledged, but let the Middle Eastern countries deal with their own. There are enough USA and Russian military might in the Middle East to wage a world war. If the Islamic countries aren't willing to get involved, even knowing that such holocaust-like murders are anti-Islam, why should we pick up their slack with their own people. We cannot be the world's police. We have no vested interest in Syria. Nor can we be so arrogant as to assume the position of world police. Any other country could look at many of our own policies and laws, determine that they didn't like them, and attack us using the same logic that the political hawks here are now using. Plus, the unavoidable loss of innocent life and concurrent destruction of resources is not justifiable.

This is a no-win situation for everyone. What's more, to simply "punish" the Assad regime without any strategic outcome is ridiculous.'

Desolous wrote: We have no vested interest in Syria. Nor can we be so arrogant as to assume the position of world police. Any other country could look at many of our own policies and laws, determine that they didn't like them, and attack us using the same logic that the political hawks here are now using. Plus, the unavoidable loss of innocent life and concurrent destruction of resources is not justifiable.

This is a no-win situation for everyone. What's more, to simply "punish" the Assad regime without any strategic outcome is ridiculous.'

It seems the UK would agree
http://world.time.com/2013/08/29/u-k-prime-minister-cameron-loses-syria-war-vote/

If the Islamic countries aren't willing to get involved, even knowing that such holocaust-like murders are anti-Islam, why should we pick up their slack with their own people. We cannot be the world's police.

First gulf war? Saddam attacked iran thinking they were weak and had lost all their allies, the decision backfired big time on him. A country like saudi arabia wouldn't do anything in Syria unless the US did it first.

That's not a reason for the U.S. not to get involved. NO country likes being interfered with by another country, regardless of the specifics. So that is irrelevant in the consideration of whether the countries with the most ability to intervene should do so.

It is very relevant. Jedi believe in freedom of conscience and self-determination. So if Syrians do not want external forces to interfere, external forces should not interfere.
Jedi also believe in the ethic of reciprocity.
Read the doctrine.

You still haven't answered my question about who else, if not the U.S.? It is the most powerful and the most capable of intervening with the fewest unnecessary casualties and damage.

US certainly have plenty of firepower but they're also known for collateral damage. I also hope they will never work with private military contractors again as these guys have a tendency to ruin everything.

I am quite aware that we have rules here against that. Of course my statements were directed to you, because I was responding to you. But in what way do you feel that I directed my arguments at you? I did not call you any names, nor attack you personally. Each time, I was addressing the arguments you laid forth. Can you give me any examples to the contrary, please?

You know very well what you did. ad hominem, to quoque and strawman were definitely in there. Don't play that game with me and leave it be. If you want to argue for or against foreign interventions in Syria and their pros and cons, this is the thread. Anything else: you keep it out.

Desolous wrote: "These people are not our friends, we have no treaty with them, and no matter what we do or whose side we take, they will never be our friends or show the slightest appreciation."

They don't need to be our friends in order for us to help protect them from further exposure to chemical WMDs. They are our brothers and sisters in spirit. We are all members of the same humanity. Plus, "never" is a mighty long time... no one can know that they will "never" be our friends. Not to mention that sometimes, politics can make for some strange bedfellows.

We wouldn't be doing it for their appreciation, either. This is something you do because protecting innocent people from such atrocities is the right thing to do. Never being appreciated is simply one price we must sometimes pay for being the ones willing to step up to the plate.

Desolous wrote: "This is a Middle East problem of dramatic proportion, acknowledged, but let the Middle Eastern countries deal with their own."

Most likely, they won't. That doesn't make it not the right thing to do, by whomever can. It is situated in the Middle East, but a crime like that is a problem for all peoples. We are all connected.

Desolous wrote: "We cannot be the world's police."

Perhaps not by ourselves, but we can serve as an example to inspire other nations into action alongside us to do what is right, to protect human populations from torturous mass murder.

Desolous wrote: "We have no vested interest in Syria."

I don't know enough insider information to know if this statement is true or not. Who knows what secret interests we might have in Syria, or in the effect it will have on Russia? But if it is true that we don't, we still have a vested interest in upholding international law against use of WMDs.

Desolous wrote: "Nor can we be so arrogant as to assume the position of world police."

It's not a matter of arrogance. It's a matter of doing what's right. We're talking about hundreds upon hundreds of agonizing deaths from the use of outlawed chemical weapons here.

Desolous wrote: "Any other country could look at many of our own policies and laws, determine that they didn't like them, and attack us using the same logic that the political hawks here are now using."

For that parallel to hold, those U.S. policies and laws would somehow have to constitute human rights violations or WMD use. The U.S. would not be considering taking action against Syria for lesser cause than that.

Desolous wrote: "Plus, the unavoidable loss of innocent life and concurrent destruction of resources is not justifiable."

It is justifiable if it is necessary, to prevent vastly more loss of life due to further use by Syrian officials of chemical weapons because nobody did anything to deter them. And as for destruction of resources, those are just things. Things can be replaced, people cannot. Several hundreds of people, even more so.

Desolous wrote: This is a no-win situation for everyone.

Gassing their own people as crowd control is the no-win situation. What we're stuck with having to consider now is simply damage control and preventing a bigger mess in the future by choosing not to do nothing now.

Desolous wrote: What's more, to simply "punish" the Assad regime without any strategic outcome is ridiculous.

It's not about punishing the regime. That would be ridiculous. How do you realistically punish someone for ending hundreds of lives? There is no punishment big enough to cover that. This is about using our military power and presence to incite fear, to act as a deterrent. Aside from that, there's nothing more we can do, short of a regime change, which the U.S. has already declared it is not seeking.

It is understandably difficult to want to take action when we know that human lives hang in the balance. But lives are in danger either way, once a country demonstrates that it is willing to attack its own citizens en masse with nerve gas.

"This is a Middle East problem of dramatic proportion, acknowledged, but let the Middle Eastern countries deal with their own."

You know how tribal nations deal with problems? Genocide. The middle east and Africa are still very much a tribal society.

If we have the ability to do something about atrocities and don't, where is the injustice then?

I am current a soldier and I do not want another freakin desert conflict, I don't want to go to a far away place and die away from everything i have built and loved.

But to stop the slaughter of people, I would. Because they can't.

Of course I hope we explore every non-shooting option we have to keep me out of that crap.