Syria: US Involvement

Andy Spalding wrote: 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.

1. Actually they've been happening equally everywhere. In europe, in asia, in south america.
2. The most recent mass killings, particularly in the middle east, were mostly inflicted by the US in its recent wars. Serious repercussions include the apparition of al qaeda in iraq after the 2003 invasion for example. Al qaeda is a terrorist organization that was created by the CIA btw. Speaking of the CIA, that organization is responsible for seeking and destroying democratic governments to replace them by blood thirsty dictators.

Oxford dictionary definitions:

tribe: "a social division in a traditional society consisting of families or communities linked by social, economic, religious, or blood ties, with a common culture and dialect, typically having a recognized leader"

genocide: "the deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular nation or ethnic group"

While my personal definition of "large group" may seem high, I'd like to point out that 1 million people only represents 0.014% of the world population. Most importantly, there is no logic behind calling the massacre of one or two thousand people genocide, when doing the same to millions somehow doesnt count as genocide. Or even a war crime, even when 80% of the casualties are civilian.

I am not debating who is more likely to commit or be the victim of genocide.

I was arguing Andy's point. Africa/middle east are only tribal on the discovery channel, and tribal civilizations are by no means responsible for more genocides than large/organized ones. I took his statement as a gross generalization and as borderline racist to be honest.

Despite being part of a nation with drawn lines and cities, the majority populous of those nations still identify by their tribal identies. It is possible to identify by tribe in a modern society, no where did I talk about naked savages running around in loincloths.

The modem political boundaries were drawn with no regard to tribal identities that were already there, which in turn leads to one group seeking national control by purging the other groups that fall within those boarders.

"Two armies that fight each other, is like one large army committing suicide."

~H.Barbusse~

Jestor wrote:

"Two armies that fight each other, is like one large army committing suicide."

~H.Barbusse~

A couple of quotes along those same lines:

Sun Tzu wrote: “The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.”
-in The Art of War

Isoroku Yamamoto wrote: "A brilliant man would find a way not to fight a war."

I just came across an interesting new word -- Jingoism

Not sure if that is what the U.S. is being like in this instance or not.

And just in case people are wondering how the tribal context applies to the Syria situation, This is a summary of Fareed Zakaria's explanation on why things are going down:

Most of the country is comprised of Sunni Arabs, but the country is run by members of a minority sect known as Alawites. The Alawite government rules through a repressive dictatorship and gives Alawites special privileges, which makes them generally resented. This in turn makes Alawites fear that they’ll be slaughtered en masse if Assad loses the war.

“Why did they happen? Because it’s a bloody civil war, competition is fierce, the losers in these civil wars know that they’re going to get massacred so they fight to the end.” -Zakaria

The introduction of WMD used indiscriminately takes it from civil war to wholesale slaughter.

Of course we can just ignore the use of this supposedly "prohibited" weapon and just let them sort themselves out. After all, why get bent out of shape when 1,000 people die from gas, when 100,000 have already died from bullets. Right?

Jestor wrote: There is always a choice...

Of course there is. But the concern is also with assuring the most positive outcome, not just with whether they can choose to fight or not. Especially since they'd be choosing to fight against their own government that has far more resources than they do. You can choose to stand in front of a steam roller, but that doesn't mean you're going to be successful in stopping it without help, when push comes to shove.

Jestor wrote: Is your cause more important, or your life?

What if dying to a far more powerful foe, like one that would employ nerve gas, also does not further your cause? Then you have thrown away your life for nothing more than a futile gesture. So long as we have the will to help, they should be able, through assistance, to further their cause of freedom without having to choose between that and their lives. There is such a thing as a needlessly limited choice.

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

If that is the case, and it were my choice to make, I would rather be damned for doing the right thing, than for complacence. But again, choice, as you say...

Jestor wrote: See my above answer... There is always a choice...

Yes, if you mean a set of options to choose between, regardless of what they are. Such as "do what the dictator says, or else get shot." Those are two options that provide a choice. But when it comes down to a reasonable, desirable choice, life doesn't always give us one. Sometimes an enemy is too powerful to overcome by ourselves, regardless of whether we choose to try to or not. Period. That's why friends and allies are so important.

Jestor wrote: 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...

A person can make this argument in general if they want, and on the surface it sounds perfectly reasonable, but realistically, in this specific case, do you or does anyone else here feel that it is the least bit not right to consider use of weapons of mass destruction to be something that should be illegal? I mean, come on, really?

Jestor wrote: Did that group of people appoint a enforcer?

Which group of people? The UN? Or the Syrian rebels? If you mean the UN, I think we've already established how ineffectual they are at preventing atrocities like this. Their resolutions have no teeth -- except for what teeth we've lended to them. No one need appoint the U.S. when it involves something that badly needs doing, and we have the capability and willingness (and no else does).

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

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

It does not suggest that they are not inclusive either, only that they need not be. In other words, there need be no restrictive correlation between the two at all.

Jestor wrote: I understand this fact too...

I did not mean to imply that I thought otherwise about you, Brother. I apologize if it seemed so. Just making conversation, in my own limited way.

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

I agree. (Depending, of course, on how you define free will and where you perceive it as originating from. But that is a whole other thread unto itself.)

I do believe Syria is one of those Vietnamesque situations. Russia+Iran+Lebanon is propping up Assad, US+Saudi+Isreal is propping up the Free Syrian Army, and Al-Nusra is backed by al-Qaeda via Iraq via CIA ...

So in reality the US has been involved for quite some time and they're really pissed because they could lose due to chemical weapons shifting the balance of power back to Assad.

So to make things simple, it's really the US vs Russia and after they have their little vietnam in Syria, al-Qaeda will come to fill in the void, thus solving the problem once and for all!

Andy Spalding wrote: Despite being part of a nation with drawn lines and cities, the majority populous of those nations still identify by their tribal identies. It is possible to identify by tribe in a modern society, no where did I talk about naked savages running around in loincloths.

The modem political boundaries were drawn with no regard to tribal identities that were already there, which in turn leads to one group seeking national control by purging the other groups that fall within those boarders.

All groups, everywhere, always try to be in power. the rich, the feminists, the jews, you-name-it.

And just in case people are wondering how the tribal context applies to the Syria situation, This is a summary of Fareed Zakaria's explanation on why things are going down:

Most of the country is comprised of Sunni Arabs, but the country is run by members of a minority sect known as Alawites. The Alawite government rules through a repressive dictatorship and gives Alawites special privileges, which makes them generally resented. This in turn makes Alawites fear that they’ll be slaughtered en masse if Assad loses the war.

Ah. So it indeed isn't tribal at all, but sectarian.

ok, here's a question from a reddit thread that hopefully will serve as a comparison for the topic here: why is the US et al so up in arms about syria when north korea basically treats its citizens like slave prisoners and has for decades? If this needs to be a new thread, please ake it so, just trying to shed some perspective on here.

From this thread:

http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/1lfk0l/why_has_the_world_seemed_to_accept_the_way_north/

Desolous wrote: ok, here's a question from a reddit thread that hopefully will serve as a comparison for the topic here: why is the US et al so up in arms about syria when north korea basically treats its citizens like slave prisoners and has for decades? If this needs to be a new thread, please ake it so, just trying to shed some perspective on here.

From this thread:

http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/1lfk0l/why_has_the_world_seemed_to_accept_the_way_north/

Because north korea's got nukes.
A majority of mulsim terrorists come from pakistan, but they don't attack pakistan because they've got nukes (drones arent as bad as invasion, PR-wise, therefore less risky)

That's why countries that have WMDs don't want other countries to have them: you can't control a country that's got them.