Strike On Syria?

[Aloysius]

I mean, I suppose we could go in and fight against all the people committing atrocities--ie, the Syrian Government and the Syrian Rebels.  but then, is that even possible, and who would be left?

 

the factors in the Syrian civil war are entirely different than those in Rwanda.  the reason for inaction here is because there is no morally justifiable action, it is completely morally unjustifiable to side with the murderous Syrian Rebels or with the murderous Syrian government.  I'm curious as to what you would have us do here?  Because siding with the Syrian Rebels is probably the best way to promote an eventual genocide against Alawites, Christians, and other minorities in Syria.

 

you can't just throw out a generic statement about "inaction" being bad--what exactly is the action you would have us take?

[CatholicsAreKewl]

During the Rwandan genocide, a series of escalating moral outrages were perpetrated by the government against the civilian population. The West considered intervening. But the negative outcome of a previous African intervention (Mogadishu) was still fresh in the American brain. The politics were so complicated, after all. Let them figure it out themselves, people said. So they dilly-d and the dally-d and they agonized and wrung their hands. As the wheels came off completely, hundreds of thousands of civilians died. (Best estimate 900,000) And we did nothing. To our everlasting shame.

 

During the Syrian civil war, a series of escalating moral outrages were perpetrated by the government against the civilian population. The West considered intervening. But the negative outcome of a previous Middle Eastern intervention (Iraq) was still fresh in the American brain. The politics were so complicated, after all. Let them figure it out themselves, people said. People have dilly dallied, agonized and wrung their hands. Can't say hundreds of thousands of civilians have died though -- only 85000 so far.  May need more innocent death before shame kicks in.

 

Inaction is not morally "safe." Both inaction and action have moral consequences.

 

You're right but if we really go by this logic we'd need to take out all of the world's dictators. Assad was never a "good" guy. His people were simply too scared (or brainwashed) to ever consider fighting him.

Edited August 31, 2013 by CatholicsAreKewl

[Lilllabettt]

Well I'm not a general or a policy expert. But I know there are things that can be done for the civilian population in Syria. Things that aren't being done --- not because we are afraid of making things worse for them--- but because we are afraid of making things worse FOR US.

[CatholicsAreKewl]

Well I'm not a general or a policy expert. But I know there are things that can be done for the civilian population in Syria. Things that aren't being done --- not because we are afraid of making things worse for them--- but because we are afraid of making things worse FOR US.

 

Like I said, I agree with you. I don't think this argument would apply unless you also favor overthrowing a bunch of other regimes as well. If so, then I don't think that's feasible.

[Lilllabettt]

The only solution is to turn the other cheek as Jesus taught us...

 

It's probably easier for us to turn the other cheek, since it's not our kids that are getting gassed in a civil war.

 

But just so you know. When He said "turn the other cheek" He did not mean "let people, a dictator or a rebel group or whoever, gas a bunch of kids."

[Ice_nine]

Like I said, I agree with you. I don't think this argument would apply unless you also favor overthrowing a bunch of other regimes as well. If so, then I don't think that's feasible.

 

True

[Aloysius]

the whole premise still seems to assume Assad used the chemical weapons, which I am not at all convinced of.  the US narrative framing the evidence ignores the large amount of evidence that the Syrian rebels themselves have stockpiles of chemical weapons and the testimony of experts who have argued that the scene which permitted workers to deal with people without hazmat suits and not get sick themselves.  I understand someone saying they're not an intelligence expert so they can't make a determination, but I can't understand anyone giving the benefit of the doubt to the US intelligence community that has time and again been shown to frame the evidence to promote war.  one should listen to the many contrary narratives coming from other experts and observers--the kinds of things that have often been shown, after we've irresponsibly marched into wars, to have been more accurate.

 

Anyway, I'm really unclear, are you suggesting that it would help the civilian population to fight against the Syrian regime?  to be honest, the thing that would help the civilian population most would be the war between these two vicious factions coming to an end, and it would actually probably be better that the rebels don't win because those are the groups full of people looking to go on revengeful ethnic cleansing campaigns.

 

I think most civilians would prefer the fighting to just stop.  unluckily for them, we're about to get involved on shotty evidence in a way that will definitely prolong the war.  I'm in favor of the war coming to an end, I think it's been clear that the rebel forces are unable to win against the government, it's pretty clear from my perspective that they would actually be a WORSE option for people to be in charge of Syria.  I'm not exactly sure what the options are that you're talking about?  humanitarian aid, facilitating refugees, etc... well I'm all in favor of that.  but anything that would strengthen the rebel forces and thereby prolong the war, I'm against.  brokering a ceasefire (sure I know it's unlikely but it's the only morally possible option when faced with a war in which you cannot support either side) that facilitates the retreat of some foreign fighters out of the region, and perhaps accepting refugees from among the rebels who are not wanted terrorists, would be a good step maybe.  this doesn't mean I support Assad, but I do definitely believe not only that Assad is better than the rebel groups, or at least than what the rebel groups have transformed into (maybe I could agree they were better at the beginning), but that he has already effectively won the war and anyone insisting upon continuing the fighting rather than trying to negotiate their concession is just dragging out the bloodshed. and those are the only two groups that are possible right now.  

 

the idea that coming in to escalate and prolong the war would in any way help the civilian population is, I think, absolutely wrong.

[Lilllabettt]

For me, it does not matter who used the gas. Innocent people are being gassed -- if somebody has the power to stop that, that somebody has the moral responsibility to try.

 

Remember the no fly zone debate. A no fly zone would make it harder to kill people. It would mean no more of this carpet bombing stuff. But there is no no-fly zone, and there will be no no-fly zone, because a no fly zone would unfairly impact the government's killing abilities.  It would seem like we were "taking sides." The government has planes with which to kill people and the rebels do not. Never mind that if the government cannot use its planes there will be less killing. We cannot have one side be less able to kill than the other.  Wait, I have a solution. We can abandon the idea of a no fly zone; instead we will ship big guns to the Syrian rebels. Then their killing powers will be equal. Then it will be fair.

 

I know. Lets ask Dick Cheney what he thinks.

 

 

I think it’s important for the Administration to come back and specify what is the U.S. national interest here? And it seems to be, if the only reason you’re going is because now you have evidence that they used chemical weapons and killed 150 people with chemical weapons, is that our national interest?

Read more: http://nation.time.com/2013/06/17/syrian-no-fly-zone-no-brainer-or-no-sense/#ixzz2dVfy9ZMC

 

Edited August 31, 2013 by Lilllabettt

[Semper Catholic]

So we don't know who we need to help, or what we need to do to help them, just that we need to do something. I'll think of people like you when I'm stuck wearing a rubber gas mask and full MOPP suit in 100 degree temperatures for the next 10 years.

[Lilllabettt]

"this is the business we've chosen."  -- Hyman Roth, The Godfather Part II

 

you weren't drafted. You have been training to do your job for years. If you abhor the day you are finally called on to do your job, then by all means, pursue some other profession.

Edited August 31, 2013 by Lilllabettt

[Aloysius]

that's NOT the job he signed up for, he signed up to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States from all enemies foreign and domestic, to defend his country and his home... not to go off fighting in totally unrelated conflicts where we cannot morally support either side on the off chance that our involvement will somehow magically decrease, not increase the casualty count.  that's something you cannot know, and I would propose to you it is something that is extremely unlikely... adding another side to the war will only increase the casualty count.  I think it's a fairy tale to imagine a US no fly zone, which will serve to extend the war by evening the playing field, would result in less casualties.  Extending the duration of a war results in more casualties in the long run, not less.  The only reason it's considered the best option for some people is because somehow those people are unwilling to accept the idea of the war ending with the rebels losing.

 

but yeah, it's absolutely not the job our soldiers signed up for.

[4588686]

I mean, I suppose we could go in and fight against all the people committing atrocities--ie, the Syrian Government and the Syrian Rebels.  but then, is that even possible, and who would be left?

 

the factors in the Syrian civil war are entirely different than those in Rwanda.  the reason for inaction here is because there is no morally justifiable action, it is completely morally unjustifiable to side with the murderous Syrian Rebels or with the murderous Syrian government.  I'm curious as to what you would have us do here?  Because siding with the Syrian Rebels is probably the best way to promote an eventual genocide against Alawites, Christians, and other minorities in Syria.

 

you can't just throw out a generic statement about "inaction" being bad--what exactly is the action you would have us take?

 

 

That's a false dichotomy.  The administration has been pretty clear that these strikes are intended to be punitive.  A way of punishing Asaad for either directing the use of chemical weapons against a large civilian population or allowing conditions where an overly zealous officer could use them.  The Obama Administration has, so far, been pretty reluctant to get seriously involved in the Syrian conflict.  A good disposition, I think, because, while you are painting with a very broad brush, there isn't a clearly good side here.  

 

Maybe the Obama administration is lying.  Obama has certainly lied, or allowed members of his administration to lie, before.  See the NSA programs.  I doubt it, though.  Maybe there will be mission creep.  Very possible here.  And maybe this is all unconstitutional.  Also a very good point.  I'm simply saying that your trichotomized 'either we fight for the rebels or we fight for Asaad or we do nothing' presentation is simplistic.  

 

We should not get seriously involved in this conflict.  If Obama tries to deploy troops on the ground he should be impeached.  Launching some cruise missiles from some battle ships against some conventional military forces may get Asaad to reign in his Officers when he comes to slaughtering civilians en mass with chemical weapons may work.  

 

 

Edited August 31, 2013 by Hasan

[4588686]

"this is the business we've chosen."  -- Hyman Roth, The Godfather Part II

 

you weren't drafted. You have been training to do your job for years. If you abhor the day you are finally called on to do your job, then by all means, pursue some other profession.

 

 

People in the Military were allowed to have opinions.  My grandfather thought Vietnam was a pretty a shitty and awful war before that evil, lying sack of shit President Nixon sent him off to comfort dying 18 year olds who had been ripped apart in the jungle.  

[Aloysius]

well I dealt with the "punitive" idea earlier, I think it's absurd and untenable.  it helps the rebels, which we shouldn't be doing, thereby prolonging the war, which we shouldn't be doing; and, by the way, I see no moral argument that justifies "oh, yeah, we have no intention to participate in this conflict, to end it in any way, but one side did something bad therefore we will launch tomahawk missiles at them and feel self-righteous about it".

 

no, there has to be a calculation that you are bettering the situation somehow, that you are taking a side or doing something productive.  since we can't pick a side that we want to be with, there's no moral justification for going into the war.  if a scenario ever arises in which somehow, somewhere, someway Bashar Al Assad could be tried in the International Criminal Court for war crimes and punished, then that'd be great.  to just throw missiles around as punishments, with the President deciding as judge, jury, and executioner, I am totally unequivocally against that.  It's insane, it's callous, it's completely non-justifiable morally IMO.

[add]

Syria would retaliate against Israel if hit by the U.S.

All hell will brake lose