Strike On Syria?

[Era Might]

I am saying that the US could be both wrong AND lying, and have been before, and in any case, even if they did start a war in good faith, the US has a long history of committing horrifying atrocities in war that rival the ones they claim to combat.

 

Okay, but I don't think that kind of general mistrust does much in terms of understanding the foreign policy situation.

[arfink]

When everything is being intentionally obfuscated under the guise of national security, I am left only to my base mistrust of almost everything the government does, and my base mistrust of anyone who says we should commit warlike acts in someone else's country without declaring a war.

[Era Might]

I can think of around 13,505,000,000 reasons. Before sanctions in 2011 Syria produced .4% of the worlds oil or 370,000 barrels per day, 1,35050,000 per year. Assuming a barrel of oil is worth $100 the yearly worth could be some where around $13,505,000,000.

 

The rebel groups could have done it so that the US does their work for them. It could be any number of the reasons the Left accused Bush of going into Iraq for as well.

 

Of course, anything is possible, though I think people in foreign policy generally have a pretty good grasp of things, and I haven't seen much discussion about this being about oil, though theoretically anything is possible.

[KnightofChrist]

Okay, but I don't think that kind of general mistrust does much in terms of understanding the foreign policy situation.

 

Do you support US intervention in Syria?

[Era Might]

Do you support US intervention in Syria?

 

I don't support or not support it. I'm just interested in the situation and understanding why the decision is being made. I think the president and everyone involved are smart people, and have reasons for doing what they do. That's why they're in government. Only history will prove if they were good reasons or not.

[KnightofChrist]

I don't support or not support it. I'm just interested in the situation and understanding why the decision is being made. I think the president and everyone involved are smart people, and have reasons for doing what they do. That's why they're in government. Only history will prove if they were good reasons or not.

 

Our recent discussion on the conflict in Egypt lead me to believe you did not support these types of 'crusades'.
 

[Era Might]

Our recent discussion on the conflict in Egypt lead me to believe you did not support these types of 'crusades'.
 

 

The Egypt thread was not about foreign policy.

[CrossCuT]

I am also undecided as to where I stand. 

 

[arfink]

I'm standing against it because our government has not done enough to assure any of us that this is just. They don't have a plan beyond some bombing, at least not that they want to tell us about. They won't say what, exactly, they intend to bomb. We don't have a clear plan on how to get out once the job is done, and the scope of the job is nebulous and undefined. Why in heck would I trust someone who didn't care to properly explain their plans when their plans involve warplanes and high explosives?

[KnightofChrist]

The Egypt thread was not about foreign policy.

 

The type of weak US interest arguments could have been used for Egypt. But even most of the pro/friendly Obama media that I've read agrees the argument for a strike against Syria based on US Interest is very weak. Both are internal conflicts in foreign nations that will not much effect the United States. I am against intervention in Syria, epically if empirical evidence cannot be produced proving that Assad's regime was behind the WMD attack. I see no good coming out of a strike, I see more problems being created if it does strike.

[Era Might]

The type of weak US interest arguments could have been used for Egypt. But even most of the pro/friendly Obama media that I've read agrees the argument for a strike against Syria based on US Interest is very weak. Both are internal conflicts in foreign nations that will not much effect the United States. I am against intervention in Syria, epically if empirical evidence cannot be produced proving that Assad's regime was behind the WMD attack. I see no good coming out of a strike, I see more problems being created if it does strike.

 

I don't look at things "pro" or "against" Obama. He's the president of the United States. But putting that aside, all that is fine area for discussion. I don't think one has to question the American investigation or have a general distrust of things in order to analyze this critically. There are a lot of legitimate questions this raises, such as to what is the strategic endgame, etc.

 

"US interest" is kind of broad. There could be any number of strategic reasons that the U.S. acts. Some of it could be posturing, which is an important part of international relations. During the Taiwan Straight Crises in the 50's China made a big military show toward Taiwan, but they sent subtle signals that it was all show, they had to posture in order to defend their status as a country that will not be bullied. That's just one example of a million different things that we have no idea is going on. It's fine for the American people to have their say, but in reality most of us have no clue what is or is not in American interests, except on an armchair level. And that's fine, and I think moral objections have their place in society. But the people who actually make decisions are going to make decisions based on their large base of knowledge, both theoretical and actual.

Edited August 28, 2013 by Era Might

[Winchester]

Another idiotic war that is completely outside any of the authority granted to the Federal government. 

[Nihil Obstat]

I am saying that the US could be both wrong AND lying, and have been before, and in any case, even if they did start a war in good faith, the US has a long history of committing horrifying atrocities in war that rival the ones they claim to combat.

Smart man.

[Era Might]

Another article, this one on the Middle East dynamics:

 

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/08/27/how_assad_united_the_middle_east_against_him

 

The administration's case for military action against Assad is being bolstered by help from Israel, which provided intelligence that was reportedly vital to the United States in its quick determination that the Syrian regime launched the chemical weapons attack in the eastern Damascus suburbs. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been equally adamant that this attack cannot go unanswered: He said that the use of chemical weapons "must not continue," and linked the struggle against the Assad regime with Israel's long-running cold war against Iran. "Assad's regime has become a full Iranian client and Syria has become Iran's testing ground," he said. "Iran is watching and it wants to see what would be the reaction on the use of chemical weapons."

[CatholicsAreKewl]

Well I guess theoretically anything is possible, who knows what is going on behind the scenes. But is there any circumstantial reason why the U.S. would want to get involved in Syria under false pretense? And is there legitimate evidence that the U.S. is wrong in its conclusions about the chemical weapons? Are you saying the U.S. may be wrong, or that it may be lying?

 

I don't know... America could be lying about chemical weapons but if it was I don't think it'd be for a monetary goal. I'm about to speak without fact checking (you should be used to that by now). There's a reason why the US and much of the world haven't done much in Syria. While taking Bashar out would be good for stability in the region, replacing him with a religious government wouldn't. Even Israel would prefer Bashar over that possibility. I'm not convinced that the chemical gas claims are disingenuous though. I think I remember one of my Syrian friends showing me something about it from an oppositional news source (though I guess that could be faked as well). 

Edited August 28, 2013 by CatholicsAreKewl