Syria: US Involvement

Andy Spalding wrote: Indeed who am I to try and move the combo toward an actual problem by using evidence, rather than voicing negative bias toward American cowboys or the American military agenda. My bad, I forgot how things roll here.

Brother Andy, to whom are you directing this statement? (I don't think it was me, obviously, but I'm curious to whom). Not everyone here feels that way about "American cowboys", etc. I only say this so that you don't feel like you're by yourself in your assertions. I have actually enjoyed reading your most recent posts on this thread.

genocide is no more a problem in their societies than it is in any other and have nothing to do with tribalism since they aren't tribal. History also shows that it isn't tribalism but nationalism that leads to genocides. "tribe" is by definition a group that is completely distinct from the nation.

When one tribe, nation, group come to power and decide they don’t like another “group” and begin to kill everyone of that group, it is a form of genocide. And the accepted definition of genocide concurs with that the statement I just made.

http://www.templeofthejediorder.org/forum/General-Discussions/104550-syria-us-involvement?start=50#116667


Your opinion is valid for you. And I recognize that you are resolute in backing said opinion. That does not mean I agree with it.

Abhaya Budhil wrote: That said, I'd rather see us focusing on problems a little closer to home instead of throwing more money at wars we don't need.

This is a very good point, and one that I must say I don't have enough information to weigh how much of a problem it is (or has become). But the principle is very sound -- "Physician, heal thyself."

It is incumbent upon us to ensure that we don't break ourselves financially trying to solve other people's problems. If we have the surplus resources, then sure, why not? But last time I took a look at the national debt, it did not make me feel like we have any surplus resources.

A tough decision to make, when the alternative is to have to stand by and watch while this kind of thing goes on unchecked. Or perhaps it could turn out to be the very stimulus that the rest of the world needs to learn how to grow some balls and do a little policing of their own.

FraterDavid wrote:

Jestor wrote: And, sometimes people dont want the help of others...

That is true, and an important thing to remember, for those who would otherwise seek to be Mr. Helpful all the time, to the annoyance of everyone. (No, I've never had to learn that lesson...)


But on the other hand, I've also learned that sometimes an oppressed person or people are not in a position to be able to ask for help, when in fact they do actually desperately need it. This would certainly seem to be one such case of desperate need. Additionally, I have heard that Syrian citizenry have actually asked for U.S. help in this case. Of course the Syrian government isn't going to ask for help; their chemicals have got it all under control.

There is always a choice...

I dont belive otherwise...

You can choose to fight, or choose to not fight...

Is your cause more important, or your life?

(Hint, it should be the cause, lol)

We are gonna be damned if we choose to help them, and damned if we choose to not help...

Jestor wrote: Sometimes, people want to fight their own battles...

That would imply that they are able to fight back at all against chemical weapons. That would not appear to be the case in this instance. They can want to all day long, but if they are not effectively able to, and international law is being violated, that's when someone else needs to step in.

See my above answer... There is always a choice...

What is International Law?

A group of people sat around and decided that it would be a good idea... Doesnt mean it is 'right'... The majority have been wrong in the past, and it would appear that if Syria is guilty of what is being said, they happen to be against the majority...

I say 'if', because I have not been following this story on the news...

Did that group of people appoint a enforcer?

Jestor wrote: Either you trust the Force to resolve the issue, or, your trust the Force when it tells you in your gut to get involved...

These two things need not be mutually exclusive. Oftentimes we become the centers of expression through which the Force is able to resolve an issue. Trust in the Force is justified either way.

Well, your retort was that they need not be mutually exclusive...

then you close with "either way", suggesting they are not inclusive either...

I understand this fact too...

The Force will do what it does, and that is flow... Our free will is the decider of which way it will flow...

Wescli Wardest wrote:

genocide is no more a problem in their societies than it is in any other and have nothing to do with tribalism since they aren't tribal. History also shows that it isn't tribalism but nationalism that leads to genocides. "tribe" is by definition a group that is completely distinct from the nation.

When one tribe, nation, group come to power and decide they don’t like another “group” and begin to kill everyone of that group, it is a form of genocide. And the accepted definition of genocide concurs with that the statement I just made.

http://www.templeofthejediorder.org/forum/General-Discussions/104550-syria-us-involvement?start=50#116667


Your opinion is valid for you. And I recognize that you are resolute in backing said opinion. That does not mean I agree with it.

This is all very nice wescli, but what does it have to do with tribes being far more likely to commit genocides? Looks to me like tribes are the victims of genocide.. And history (fact) shows that the most effective perpetrators are not tribes at all but larger, powerful, centrally organized groups consisting of many sub-groups (mongol, USSR, nazi, etc).

I'm a little late in this, but here's what I think.

This does not warrant US involvement or any external involvement. The claim of "chemical weapons" is hauntingly familiar. The thing is, the folks who control the US, NATO, UN, and EU do not want any significant and/or country out of their reach and influence. Russia is time and again villainized in the media for doing things mild in comparison to the stuff the US does every day. Gaddafi wanted Libya to be self-reliant and independent, and to even form a pan-African union, and we all know what happened. Milosevic wanted nothing further than for Serbia to be independent and finally free on its own, after centuries of oppression by the Ottomans, and most of a century of oppression under the USSR, and look what happened to him. Hitler just wanted a strong, independent Germany, and we all know what happened there. The propaganda machine gets the public opinion behind these acts of military adventurism, and more and more governments fall.

I am leaving the USA soon. If your country is in the EU, demand that that it withdraw. NATO makes the Warsaw Pact look virtuous. The UN, well, I have things to say that I cannot say here. But I will keep Mr. Assad in my thoughts, and I wish him the best.

If you look at the site, you will notice two things.
1. The majority of current and recent genocides are in the Middle East and Africa

2. They involve tribe v tribe violence or nation v tribe.

With out debating YOUR definition of tribe and what YOU think constitutes genocide, I will go with how the nations involved in that resolution view them.

Hitler just wanted a strong, independent Germany, and we all know what happened there.

Yes... Yes we do...

He wanted a geographically larger, more pure Germany...

So, [strike]invade[/strike] convince other countries that you know best, by force if necessary, and clean up the deficiencies in the gene pool, and presto!!

A strong, independent country...

(It was not meant to be sarcastic, only darkly humorous..... Please don't be offended)

Jestor wrote:

Hitler just wanted a strong, independent Germany, and we all know what happened there.

Yes... Yes we do...

He wanted a geographically larger, more pure Germany...

So, [strike]invade[/strike] convince other countries that you know best, by force if necessary, and clean up the deficiencies in the gene pool, and presto!!

A strong, independent country...

(It was not meant to be sarcastic, only darkly humorous..... Please don't be offended)

I'd rather not get into this debate, but as somebody who has studied history for years...

Hitler was reclaiming land that had been part of Germany before the Treaty of Versailles (which coincidentally took place in the very country that is responsible for the EU). As for the genetic purity part, yes, Nazi Germany did practice eugenics, which, by the way, was an idea that Hitler stole directly from the contemporary US, which he bluntly states in "Zweites Buch." The expansion of Hitler's Germany was not based on race, but on historical territory. Note that even before the rise of the NSDAP, he was strongly against the idea of annexing ethnically German areas of Italy. He was not a warmonger, and the cause of tension was that the allies would rather fight than renounce the criminal Treaty of Versailles. Hitler did not want war with Britain or even France. Blame is on the allies, and I'm saying this as an American with a grandfather who was in the war.

I'm no Nazi, but I don't buy into the holohoax or "nazi" hysteria. Fascism and nazism died in 1945, Communism never truly existed, and I don't use emotion-and-stigma-laden words like those. However, what we can all agree upon, is that IMPERIALISM is good and alive, and sadly, it is my country that is doing it. At least when the British had their colonies, they brought civilization and infrastructure. The US gets its rocks off by destroying order and infrastructure, for example, in Germany, Serbia, Iraq, and elsewhere.

No offense taken, Jestor. I get what you meant.

I am not debating who is more likely to commit or be the victim of genocide. I was stating the accepted definition for clarification.

How or why genocide occurs or to who is secondary (in my opinion) to the greater issue; which is, that it happens at all.

Whatever reasons people have to support or oppose US involvement in Syria is theirs to have. If people want to debate hypothetical, compare past events to present or speculate things out of their control… more power to them.

I would like for statements and references to be accurate and as few accusations as possible. In short I would like to see that it is done in what I would consider a civil manner.