Syria's Situation Dips Lower

[Bootstoots]

The geopolitical situation in Syria does not favor limited intervention the way it did in Libya. So I say we wait this one out.

 

[Defiant47]

Fine, but if the intervention happens, and we have an interventionist/rebel equivalent to the siege of Homs, don't say I didn't warn you. Libya certainly had its share of besieged cities and rebel crimes.

It's a calculated risk that our top brass have to figure out, whether and when it is optimal to intervene.

I'm against intervening in Syria, as I was in Lybia. But what I don't get are the mental gymnastics used by some governments to justify toppling Kadaffi and doing nothinh about Assad. How was Kadaffi any worse? If anything, Assad is behaving in the most brutal fashion of all recently challenged dictators during the Arab Spring.

Risk of thermonuclear annihilation.

(i.e. UN vetoes - we can't even get the UN to condemn Asaad, let alone consider intervening)

 

[IAM]

If they are not a direct threat to us leave them alone. If they are a threat annihilate every single person in the country. No middle ground for me.

 

[Defiant47]

If they are not a direct threat to us leave them alone. If they are a threat annihilate every single person in the country. No middle ground for me.

Exactly. Who cares if they are a threat to other nations? We gotta take care of America #1. It's just a bunch of Arabs dying, we shouldn't bother.

 

[IAM]

Exactly. Who cares if they are a threat to other nations? We gotta take care of America #1. It's just a bunch of Arabs dying, we shouldn't bother.

I'm not being sarcastic I really don't care. If we left people alone we wouldn't have so many enemies and those that pushed us could be an example for the rest.

 

[Defiant47]

I'm not being sarcastic I really don't care. If we left people alone we wouldn't have so many enemies and those that pushed us could be an example for the rest.

I believe in doing the right thing even if you get burned. You have to stand up and defend those who need you, not cower in the corner wallowing in selfishness.

 

[aelf]

1. It would be wrong to intervene, since it is not our place to dictate whether innocents should be slaughtered or not. If a tyrannical dictator decides to bombard thousands of innocents, who are we to say that's wrong? We can't impose our own code of morality on others.

2. Intervention would have too much collateral damage. Even though we have honed our tactics and would probably hit mainly military targets, it would be unacceptable to kill even one civilian. Fewer civilians would die overall, but we would be directly involved in their deaths - it is better to have no responsibility involved, even if magnitudes more die.

3. A military intervention campaign would cost too much. Syrians and members of other races are not worth our money or intervention. So who cares if some population on the other side of the world is brutalized and exterminated? We have to take care of our own, and no-one else. Better that each household gets a wide-screen TV, rather than that money be used to save thousands and thousands of non-American innocent lives.

4. Stability is more important than anything. It doesn't matter if a dictator is a murderer or a genocidal maniac. By sheer virtue of him being in power, the local geopolitical situation is somewhat more stable. That is worth countless innocent lives, and we should not remove that kind of stability.

Holy strawmen Batman!

 

[IAM]

I believe in doing the right thing even if you get burned. You have to stand up and defend those who need you, not cower in the corner wallowing in selfishness.

I believe in doing the right thing also. Let them burn it's not our concern.

By saying you believe in doing the right thing you <assume?> i believe in doing the wrong thing? But if I thought it was the wrong thing why would I do it?

 

[Tycho]

Love how it's going guys.

Also, we shouldn't care about Ugandan warlord Kony, or North Korea, or Sudan, or the drug cartels in Mexico, etc. etc. etc.

Not our concern! It's not us, so let them burn!

 

[Defiant47]

Holy strawmen Batman!

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.

I believe in doing the right thing also. Let them burn it's not our concern.

By saying you believe in doing the right thing you <assume?> i believe in doing the wrong thing? But if I thought it was the wrong thing why would I do it?

I did not make that assumption or implication. I can accept that some people are not willing to do the right thing - I don't expect everyone to be a saint. Just because someone doesn't do the right thing doesn't mean they're doing the wrong thing.

 

[Mr. Dictator]

If they are not a direct threat to us leave them alone. If they are a threat annihilate every single person in the country. No middle ground for me.

Or we can let humans decide things like this.

 

[Tycho]

I did not make that assumption or implication. I can accept that some people are not willing to do the right thing - I don't expect everyone to be a saint. Just because someone doesn't do the right thing doesn't mean they're doing the wrong thing.

... What are they doing then?

 

[Defiant47]

... What are they doing then?

Nothing.

You can do something good. You can do something bad. And you can do nothing.

I disagree with doing nothing. But it's not quite as bad as doing bad. Apathy is contemptible. Malice is wrong.

 

[innonimatu]

I believe in doing the right thing even if you get burned. You have to stand up and defend those who need you, not cower in the corner wallowing in selfishness.

That really is a burden you want to shoulder! But hey, it's all for the sake of helping the natives, so it's worth it, right?

It is solely for the sake of helping the natives, isn't it? Those poor natives who can't handle their own affairs and must be civilized every few decades. Especially when their governments get uppity and refuse to sing to the tune of the "international community".

 

[Defiant47]

That really is a burden you want to shoulder! But hey, it's all for the sake of helping the natives, so it's worth it, right?

It is solely for the sake of helping the natives, isn't it? Those poor natives who can't handle their own affairs and must be civilized every few decades. Especially when their governments get uppity and refuse to sing to the tune of the "international community".

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.

 

[jtb1127]

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.

Not sure what kind of ethical system that is. If rights are valued than they must be valued impartially, not to be arbitrarily assigned to people who have somehow earned them. Is a child who cannot defend them self not entitled rights when a kidnapper tries to grab them? Should a spectator of this incident do nothing given the inherent fact (by your logic) that if this child cannot protect them self they are not deserving of life. This hypothetical does not even need to be include a child to prove that your premise is so obviously false. The same can be used in the instance of the overthrow of a dictator.

 

[Defiant47]

Not sure what kind of ethical system that is. If rights are valued than they must be valued impartially, not to be arbitrarily assigned to people who have somehow earned them. Is a child who cannot defend them self not entitled rights when a kidnapper tries to grab them? Should a spectator of this incident do nothing given the inherent fact (by your logic) that if this child cannot protect them self they are not deserving of life. This hypothetical does not even need to be include a child to prove that your premise is so obviously false. The same can be used in the instance of the overthrow of a dictator.

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.

 

[IAM]

words mean nothing

1.5 million people have died on american roads etc.

what actions have people taken. my actions match my beliefs. I don't care so I do nothing. if everyone in the middle east died of plague tonight it wouldn't realy affect me. Actually it may make gas prices go down. So yea for us.

 

[Tycho]

words mean nothing

1.5 million people have died on american roads etc.

what actions have people taken. my actions match my beliefs. I don't care so I do nothing. if everyone in the middle east died of plague tonight it wouldn't realy affect me. Actually it may make gas prices go down. So yea for us.

Might also cause a power struggle that leaves us with a thermonuclear war that eliminates most of mankind, at which point, we have no need for gas.

Everything that happens will have an effect elsewhere, no matter what happens. Leaving Syria as it is might make a more bitter Arab Spring rise up, several decades down the road.

 

[IAM]

Might also cause a power struggle that leaves us with a thermonuclear war that eliminates most of mankind, at which point, we have no need for gas.

Everything that happens will have an effect elsewhere, no matter what happens. Leaving Syria as it is might make a more bitter Arab Spring rise up, several decades down the road.

yes cause and effect.

If we <rarely> obliterate enemies and mostly leave people alone they will leave us alone. My thoughts are based on base survival instints of all humanoids.