Syria.

[Lilllabettt]

Were you planning on explaining why the US should go conduct a war in Syria, or was this post just to complain that some people do not agree with you, and to call them pathetic for it?

 

Well, hello narrative leap. I did not say the US should "go conduct a war" in Syria. 

 

The point is that the possession of power has moral implications. The use of power is a moral issue, the choice to not use power is also a moral issue.

 

My default assumption is that those with power have a duty to exercise it on the behalf of the welfare of weaker people. Those who support non-intervention have the burden of proof.

 

Once again: conventional war does not occur on planet earth unless the United States chooses to allow it. 

[Nihil Obstat]

Well, hello narrative leap. I did not say the US should "go conduct a war" in Syria. 

 

The point is that the possession of power has moral implications. The use of power is a moral issue, the choice to not use power is also a moral issue.

 

My default assumption is that those with power have a duty to exercise it on the behalf of the welfare of weaker people. Those who support non-intervention have the burden of proof.

 

Once again: conventional war does not occur on planet earth unless the United States chooses to allow it. 

Well, you essentially said that non-interventionists are "pathetic". If that is not what you meant, then so be it, but it is not difficult to read that conclusion.

 

Should the burden of proof not be on the people who want to use some tool, as opposed to not using it? I agree that inaction has moral implications, but you and I would both agree that there is an important moral difference between killing and letting die.That also enters into such a discussion.

[Lilllabettt]

Well, you essentially said that non-interventionists are "pathetic". If that is not what you meant, then so be it, but it is not difficult to read that conclusion.

 

Should the burden of proof not be on the people who want to use some tool, as opposed to not using it? I agree that inaction has moral implications, but you and I would both agree that there is an important moral difference between killing and letting die.That also enters into such a discussion.

 

 

What I meant was that the record of American intervention in these conflicts is rather pathetic. The record shows that we allow the wars that we think would be "too hard" on us-- cost us too much blood or treasure or political capital. We forbid the wars that would either be in opposition to our national interest or offend our sensibilities in some way. Death is especially awful if the people who die are wearing blue jeans.

 

Power, particularly the kind that comes with sitting on top of the heap, is not like having a handsaw or drill bit lying around somewhere. Being #1 is a choice. You know that speech they give to people sitting in the emergency exit row on airplanes? blah, blah, blah, if you don't want the responsibility, we will find you another seat. They flat out tell medical students: if you don't want to have a positive moral responsibility to render aid when you see a sick or injured person, do not become a doctor. Because once you have received the knowledge and power to help you will forever have that obligation.

 

 If you have climbed to the top of the ladder, you have assumed a moral duty to exercise your strength on behalf of weaker people. If you don't want that burden, if it is "too hard" - then give it up. Let someone else have a chance, maybe they will be able to do it. 

Edited June 11, 2014 by Lilllabettt

[Nihil Obstat]

What I meant was that the record of American intervention in these conflicts is rather pathetic. The record shows that we allow the wars that we think would be "too hard" on us-- cost us too much blood or treasure or political capital. 

 

Power, particularly the kind that comes with sitting on top of the heap, is not like having a handsaw or drill bit lying around somewhere. Being #1 is a choice. You know that speech they give to people sitting in the emergency exit row on airplanes? blah, blah, blah, if you don't want the responsibility, we will find you another seat. They flat out tell medical students: if you don't want to have a positive moral responsibility to render aid when you see a sick or injured person, do not become a doctor. Because once you have received the knowledge and power to help you will forever have that obligation.

 

 If you have climbed to the top of the ladder, you have assumed a moral duty to exercise your strength on behalf of weaker people. If you don't want that burden, if it is "too hard" - then give it up. Let someone else have a chance, maybe they will be able to do it. 

I think there is significant moral difference between using your training to save people outright, as with a doctor, and using power and technology and training to kill people in order to save other people.

I am not saying that military intervention is necessarily wrong, but comparing it to a doctor's obligation to provide medical intervention is, I think, misleading.

[Lilllabettt]

I think there is significant moral difference between using your training to save people outright, as with a doctor, and using power and technology and training to kill people in order to save other people.

I am not saying that military intervention is necessarily wrong, but comparing it to a doctor's obligation to provide medical intervention is, I think, misleading.

 

Well, I think there are important parallels.  I'm not speaking exclusively of military intervention here, because there are many ways to skin a cat and many ways to intervene in a war. This is something the American people are well aware of - or ought to be. This country has guaranteed  the peace of the first world for 70 years. That is a hella long time for peace and it is not an accident my friend. It's not because everybody decided it would be nice to get along. Nope. That's somebody leaning into somebody else, hard.

[Nihil Obstat]

Well, I think there are important parallels.  I'm not speaking exclusively of military intervention here, because there are many ways to skin a cat and many ways to intervene in a war. This is something the American people are well aware of - or ought to be. This country has guaranteed  the peace of the first world for 70 years. That is a hella long time for peace and it is not an accident my friend. It's not because everybody decided it would be nice to get along. Nope. That's somebody leaning into somebody else, hard.

I certainly would prefer peacekeeping of the non-killing sort.

[Socrates]

Yes, hypocrite, rich, slave owning gentlemen are the cornerstone of every great nation.  It is a shame we deprived them of being able to have such legends. 

 

You forgot to mention that those oppressive bastages are also white, male, heterosexual, and dead.

[Credo in Deum]

You forgot to mention that those oppressive bastages are also white, male, heterosexual, and dead.

I did that so you would have something to post. You're welcome.

[Norseman82]

Here's the problem.  If we take a look at recent history, partiularly at what happened in Egypt, authoritarian rulers were toppled only to have anti-Christian violence occur.  It also occurred in Iraq, which, like Syria, has a common history of Ba'ath party dictators.  And if you are following what is happening in Iraq the last week regarding the fall of a major city to an Islamic extremist group known as ISIS: 

 

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/06/14/isis-leader-see-you-in-new-york.html#

 

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/06/13/maliki_and_iraqs_disaster_122971.html

 

By one account, they dominate western Iraq, so the fear is that they could also become a signifiant player in a destabilized Syria next door. 

 

One friend of mine emaied me that this is causing him to become 100% pro-Assad.  (Personally, I feel the Turkish model would be a better solution).

Edited June 14, 2014 by Norseman82

[Norseman82]

edit:  double-post

Edited June 14, 2014 by Norseman82

[Norseman82]

When a people come together to throw off a yoke, that collaberation can be built on.  We rescued them from being able to work things out for themselves.  It's like preventing your kids from ever falling and skinning their knees. 

 

I just saw this on MSN: 

 

http://news.msn.com/world/young-iraqis-volunteer-to-fight-surging-militants

 

However, this does seem more like a civil war is brewing between the Sunni and others.