Syria's Situation Dips Lower

[jtb1127]

You grossly misunderstood my point. If a group of people are incapable of ruling themselves without electing a leader that kills and brutalizes them, then a more civilized group should be allowed to integrate them and/or rule over them. The group of people have rights to life - if their right to self-governance results in the loss of other more important rights (such as right to life or such), then it can be waived.

I don't understand the relationship between self-governance and intervention in Syria. The current regime in Syria does not constitute as a self-governed nation because the regime is not democratic (the claim that it is so is false) and the people (at least a very large group of them) do not consent to hit. Given this, I fail to differentiate a Syrian dictator from a foreign one. The nationality of the dictator makes no difference. Overall, my point doesn't really make a difference if we're saying that intervention is necessary.

 

[IAM]

The group of people have rights to life -

simple question

not willing to engage in a long conversation here but

how have you determined this statement to be true

how is it that you have decided this... not looking to argue if you think it is simply assumed for all huminoids then that is answer enough.

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

It is in Assad's best interests to be as brutal and repressive to the uprising as possible. Like all dictators, he has a small cadre of backers (Alawites) that ensure the survival of his regime and benefit from it at the expense of the rest of the population. He cannot appear weak to them, knowing that he can easily be replaced. As long as he can maintain the privileges expected by his supporters during this war, he can remain in power and fend off threats against it. Syria doesn't have a ready source of income, like great natural resources or vibrant international trade. It depends a great deal on foreign aid from its ally, Iran. So long as this gravy train continues, he may very well succeed in crushing this rebellion. The only thing that would shift the balance in favor of the Free Syrian Army is if they are supplied greater than the Syrian army. There doesn't appear much interest in helping the FSA. No nation is terribly interested in toppling the Assad regime, so the FSA is on its own. That doesn't bode well for them.

 

[IAM]

Like all dictators, he has a small cadre of backers

Syria doesn't have a ready source of income,

Julious Ceasar had the backing of the majority in Rome.

Syria has many magnificent ruins from the ancient world. Only other nations unwillingness to trade and visit with them has made the situation dire.

 

[jtb1127]

Only other nations unwillingness to trade and visit with them has made the situation dire.

So you're blaming every person who doesn't live in Syria for its current situation because they did not do their best to trade with the country and if they had then Syria would be more reliant upon foreign relations and economic sanctions would be a plausible solution?

 

[IAM]

So you're blaming every person who doesn't live in Syria for its current situation because they did not do their best to trade with the country and if they had then Syria would be more reliant upon foreign relations and economic sanctions would be a plausible solution?

It's nto a one day solution but countries with long-term strong trade do not war against each other or their own people.

Syria specifically has lots of ancient ruins and christian stuff for people to fawn over.

 

[innonimatu]

If they can't handle their own affairs without propping up a government that slaughters innocents willy-nilly, then they do not have the right to self-governance, and should be ruled by the more "civilized" nations.

What makes you believe that a more "civilized" nation would be able to rule them without recourse to the very same tactics that their present government uses? Without slaughtering innocents in order to impose a new "civilized" government? Or, more likely, without escalating the use of such tactics?

Past examples: just about every colonial war waged in the last century. In this century, the latest chapter of the bloody history of Afghanistan, for example. Or the large number of iraqis killed during the anarchy imposed there by the latest invasion.

 

[Defiant47]

1.5 million people have died on american roads etc.

what actions have people taken

We have traffic laws that minimize these deaths. Just because deaths still occur, doesn't mean that these deaths haven't been minimized to the greatest extent possible.

My thoughts are based on base survival instints of all humanoids.

All well and good for you, but humanity has risen above its natural "instincts" to build civilization.

I don't understand the relationship between self-governance and intervention in Syria. The current regime in Syria does not constitute as a self-governed nation because the regime is not democratic (the claim that it is so is false) and the people (at least a very large group of them) do not consent to hit. Given this, I fail to differentiate a Syrian dictator from a foreign one. The nationality of the dictator makes no difference. Overall, my point doesn't really make a difference if we're saying that intervention is necessary.

True. I just want to apply my approach to a broader context. It's important to understand the underlying principles of one's beliefs, rather than accept a case-by-case basis for solutions. Just because intervention in Syria is the obvious ethical choice does not mean that we can't think about the broader moral context.

simple question

not willing to engage in a long conversation here but

how have you determined this statement to be true

"I have gained this by philosophy: that I do without being commanded what others do only from fear of the law" - Aristotle

What makes you believe that a more "civilized" nation would be able to rule them without recourse to the very same tactics that their present government uses? Without slaughtering innocents in order to impose a new "civilized" government? Or, more likely, without escalating the use of such tactics?

We look at proof from the past and proof from history. For example, when revolts happen in America or Canada, the police intervene only when these riots get violent, and even then only non-lethal methods are used.

When revolts occur in "backwards" regimes, it's open season on any and all civilians out in the street. This is just one example.

Sorry innonimatu, but the United States of America and its government is objectively more ethical than these other governments we're discussing.

In this century, the latest chapter of the bloody history of Afghanistan, for example. Or the large number of iraqis killed during the anarchy imposed there by the latest invasion.

None of it intentional as a modus operandi, and none of it obviously* more damaging than inaction.

* - as in, you can't say with sufficient certainty that more died than would have died if we did not intervene; and I mean long-term

 

[Lone Wolf]

The USA is more ethical then Middle Eastern dictators in treating their own citizens, but not much more ethical in treatment of other countries' citizens. It's not unique in that regard.

There are some extreme examples of this dissonance in 19th century colonialism. German colonial government in Namibia committed genocide of the Herero people, yet Germany itself was a civilized constitutional monarchy, and no German statesman would think of doing to his own people what German administration did to Herero.

 

[aelf]

My post was meant to make a point, not to take on anyone's arguments. When I do that, you'll see me quote them and address them directly.

So you came up with ridiculous points that no one has actually supported? That's still seems like constructing strawmen to me, ready to be used when someone so much as expresses a similar (but different) view. If that's not the purpose, then you're simply wasting your time.

 

[IAM]

"I have gained this by philosophy: that I do without being commanded what others do only from fear of the law" - Aristotle

That does not answer the simple question I asked. How did you decide that humans have a right to life. The quote could be employed by me as well but does not answer the question.

 

[innonimatu]

We look at proof from the past and proof from history. For example, when revolts happen in America or Canada, the police intervene only when these riots get violent, and even then only non-lethal methods are used.

When revolts occur in "backwards" regimes, it's open season on any and all civilians out in the street. This is just one example.

Sorry innonimatu, but the United States of America and its government is objectively more ethical than these other governments we're discussing.

When about half the states of that country south of yours decided to cease obeying to the federal government, after long disputes regarding mostly trade, and demand the withdrawal of its troops, what happened?

What would really have happened in Canada had Trudeau's government lost the Quebec referendum?

And for a long time this syrian rebellion and this "free syrian army" have been violently attacking the government and assorted civilians in Syrian. As in blowing up people by the busload. When armed groups decided to openly challenge state authority in your country, what happens? That's the parallel to look into.

Also, what you advocate is invasion and colonial rule, not the extension of home government to other territories, complete will all rights and privileges of citizenship. When the USA went into the Philippines to... "liberate" the locals, what happened? What happened in the colonies of just about every european "ethical" colonial power? What happens still today in the less integrated territories of so many countries around the world?

 

[Tycho]

When about half the states of that country south of yours decided to cease obeying to the federal government, after long disputes regarding mostly trade, and demand the withdrawal of its troops, what happened?

What would really have happened in Canada had Trudeau's government lost the Quebec referendum?

And for a long time this syrian rebellion and this "free syrian army" have been violently attacking the government and assorted civilians in Syrian. As in blowing up people by the busload. When armed groups decided to openly challenge state authority in your country, what happens? That's the parallel to look into.

Also, what you advocate is invasion and colonial rule, not the extension of home government to other territories, complete will all rights and privileges of citizenship. When the USA went into the Philippines to... "liberate" the locals, what happened? What happened in the colonies of just about every european "ethical" colonial power? What happens still today in the less integrated territories of so many countries around the world?

Blowing up people by busload? You've got the wrong people there. The Syrian Army, the one that is on Al-Asad's side, has been shelling the city of Homs for quite awhile, posting snipers on rooftops to shoot anyone, has rounded up people by the thousands and detained them, and orchestrated several large massacres, some of which have a death toll of about a hundred on some days. All in all, it looks like the government, which has called the Free Syrian Army and rebel fighters "armed terrorist gangs", is covering up a lot of stuff about what is going on in Syria. Women, men, children, the elderly, doesn't matter who you are. If you were in Baba Amr during the shelling, or when they had snipers up there, crossing the street could mean a bullet blew your brains all over the sidewalk.

 

[Lone Wolf]

The Syrian Army, the one that is on Al-Asad's side, has been shelling the city of Homs for quite awhile, posting snipers on rooftops to shoot anyone, has rounded up people by the thousands and detained them, and orchestrated several large massacres,

Atrocities by the government don't mean that rebels are just fine and dandy. We saw in the case of Libya, that rebel groups can be just as brutal as dictators.

 

[Tycho]

Atrocities by the government don't mean that rebels are just fine and dandy. We saw in the case of Libya, that rebel groups can be just as brutal as dictators.

Very true, but if we are measuring who exactly has committed the worst atrocities, the government wins by a long ways.

 

[Lone Wolf]

Very true, but if we are measuring who exactly has committed the worst atrocities, the government wins by a long ways.

That's because the rebels right now just don't have the firepower. If the intervention happens, where's the guarantee that loyalist Syrian cities won't be bombed like Homs now? Loyalist Qaddafi strongholds were. And Assad seems to have his loyalist powerbase, just like the rebels have theirs.

 

[Tycho]

That's because the rebels right now just don't have the firepower. If the intervention happens, where's the guarantee that loyalist Syrian cities won't be bombed like Homs now? Loyalist Qaddafi strongholds were. And Assad seems to have his loyalist powerbase, just like the rebels have theirs.

Very true. There is always collateral damage during a civil war, with large amounts of people dying. Both sides will take it.

 

[Winner]

Don't forget that the Sunnis want blood now. Rivers of blood.

 

[NedimNapoleon]

Fountains not rivers....

 

[Dachs]

There are some extreme examples of this dissonance in 19th century colonialism. German colonial government in Namibia committed genocide of the Herero people, yet Germany itself was a civilized constitutional monarchy, and no German statesman would think of doing to his own people what German administration did to Herero.

It wasn't actually the colonial government in Süd-West Afrika that committed genocide, but the army, which at that point was chiefly comprised of regular forces, not Schütztruppen. Theodor Leutwein, the commander of the local Schütztruppen and a colonial official, wanted to inflict a defeat and use it to negotiate with the Herero and the Nama, but Lothar von Trotha, commander of the two-division expeditionary force that arrived in May 1904, overruled him and drove the Herero and Nama into the desert; most of the survivors were forced into concentration camps.

Having said that, Leutwein's scruples probably related to the value of the Herero and Nama as laborers, not as subjects of the German Empire. Overall point doesn't really change.