Use of Chemical Weapons in Syria

[Defiant47]

When and where have you established order? This should be serious argument in 90s maybe.

Germany
Japan

It took a lot of work, but we actually saw it through. I could list off more, but I could also list off numerous botched examples.

 

[Ajidica]

Nope. You stated that they publicly supported him instead of merely allowing him to live there because they thought he was harmless and was being persecuted by the Saudis and others. It should be quite simple to show that the government publicly supported bin Laden instead of merely condoning him and allowing him to stay there.

Given the intense political pressure put on Saudi Arabia and Sudan to get bin Laden out of their country, and the danger he would have been under had he gone anywhere else but Afghanistan, by accepting him the Taliban was providing a public announcement of support for bin Laden.
EDIT: Whether or not the Taliban thought bin Laden was 'harmless' is quite irrelevant considering he was wanted to international crimes and they publicly provided him with sanctuary.

The Taliban were apparently even more than willing to hand over bin Laden to the US or some international court if they were given any proof at all that he was engaged in terrorist activites after 9/11. The Bush administration refused to do so. The rest is history.

Not quite. Initially, the Taliban said they would try bin-Laden when given evidence, then they moved on to saying that they would hand over bin-Laden to a third party court. All of this was moot because the Taliban was currently being overrun by the United Islamic Front (Northern Alliance) and would have been incapable of bringing bin-Laden to trial. Given that the most sophisticated information gathering agencies took nine years to track bin-Laden down, color me unimpressed as to the ability of a collapsing Taliban to capture bin-Laden in an area they didn't really control.

 

[Rashiminos]

Related:

http://rt.com/news/syria-chemical-prepared-advance-901/

Materials implicating Syrian govt in chemical attack prepared before incident – Russia

Materials implicating the forces of Syrian president Bashar Assad in chemical weapons use near Damascus were prepared prior to the alleged incident on August 21, the Russian foreign ministry said.

Moscow continues to monitor closely the event surrounding the “alleged” chemical attack near Damascus, Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman, Aleksandr Lukashevich, said in a statement.

“We’re getting more new evidence that this criminal act was of a provocative nature,” he stressed. “In particular, there are reports circulating on the Internet, in particular that the materials of the incident and accusations against government troops had been posted for several hours before the so-called attack. Thus, it was a pre-planned action.”

 

[strijder20]

Germany
Japan

Those both are developed countries, which seem to lean towards stability in general. In developing countries unrest seems more the rule than the exception.

 

[Defiant47]

Those both are developed countries, which seem to lean towards stability in general. In developing countries unrest seems more the rule than the exception.

They were pretty much devastated to the point of being "developing countries" when the Western world came in.

The point is that we saw a country doing stuff that was wrong, including stuff that we didn't know they were doing which was even more abhorrent, such as invading a bunch of countries. After whooping their asses, we sat our asses down until they were stabilized.

Nowadays, everyone wants to get in and out. Bush was oh-so-eager to declare mission accomplished in Iraq, and the public has been constantly harping on withdrawing troops from whatever conflicts we're engaged in. Few people realize that to enact real change and stability, we need to stay for a long time and devote the time and resources to achieve it.

But, as always, I'd rather have a slightly bigger TV than save innocent lives in the Middle East or elsewhere, eh?

 

[NBAfan]

They were pretty much devastated to the point of being "developing countries" when the Western world came in.

The point is that we saw a country doing stuff that was wrong, including stuff that we didn't know they were doing which was even more abhorrent, such as invading a bunch of countries. After whooping their asses, we sat our asses down until they were stabilized.

Nowadays, everyone wants to get in and out. Bush was oh-so-eager to declare mission accomplished in Iraq, and the public has been constantly harping on withdrawing troops from whatever conflicts we're engaged in. Few people realize that to enact real change and stability, we need to stay for a long time and devote the time and resources to achieve it.

But, as always, I'd rather have a slightly bigger TV than save innocent lives in the Middle East or elsewhere, eh?

The thing about Iraq though is things aren't really better then before, at the cost of tens of thousands of civilians dead from the insurgency.

 

[Rashiminos]

I don't think Defiant claimed Iraq was a successful operation.

 

[Defiant47]

I don't think Defiant claimed Iraq was a successful operation.

Correct.

The right thing for the wrong reasons in the wrong way with the wrong exit strategy, such that it wasn't the right thing anymore at all.

 

[strijder20]

The problem is that both Japan and Germany were (for the largest part) the aggressor in the conflicts which led to 'whooping their asses', which kind of gave the U.S. and allies the right to be involved with the stabilization of those countries. I suppose this made the population much more placid in accepting foreign interference too.

However, Iraq, Afghanistan and others are nowhere close to a match to the American military, making the U.S. automatically seem like the bad guys (even when they are not the aggressor). This in turn makes the native population much more reluctant towards foreign interference in politics. So even if the U.S. would have staid in Iraq instead of 'get in and out' (as you correctly described it), things would have been a lot more difficult than in Germany and Japan.

 

[Defiant47]

The problem is that both Japan and Germany were (for the largest part) the aggressor in the conflicts which led to 'whooping their asses', which kind of gave the U.S. and allies the right to be involved with the stabilization of those countries. I suppose this made the population much more placid in accepting foreign interference too.

However, Iraq, Afghanistan and others are nowhere close to a match to the American military, making the U.S. automatically seem like the bad guys (even when they are not the aggressor). This in turn makes the native population much more reluctant towards foreign interference in politics. So even if the U.S. would have staid in Iraq instead of 'get in and out' (as you correctly described it), things would have been a lot more difficult than in Germany and Japan.

Then we need to revise our morals. (But obviously it's way more complicated than that) Regardless, I view it as a double-edged sword:

On one hand, people are excessively "peace-lovers" in our times and allergic to any sort of military action that isn't 100%-guaranteed-to-be-pure-evil-nazis-or-terrorists. This is actually pretty great, because war is terrible and to be avoided as much as possible. Humanity's history paints numerous needless wars with needless suffering. What's important is that people's dispositions and cultures are now anti-war, which will drastically decrease the chance and scale of conflicts, since popular support is typically needed to engage in any drawn-out conflict.

On the other hand, people refuse military action even when it's necessary, and have confused the "peace is great" culture with "focus on our affairs at home rather than abroad conflict". So we like to turn a blind eye to horrible things that are happening in Africa, the Middle East, and Asia. This means that when a dictator starts slaughtering his own people just to stay in power, we don't have the popular support to move in and stop that from happening.

What's worse, warmongering leaders have thrust us into wars inappropriately, like Iraq. Because Bush screwed that up, now the American people are naturally allergic to any other conflict, however necessary or different, out of fear and anger that it would turn out to be just the same. That leaves us with few options to actually stabilize areas such as Syria.

And that's before I even get into the trickiness of international politics (i.e. getting Russia and China to agree and not veto us at the UN).

 

[Formaldehyde]

However, Iraq, Afghanistan and others are nowhere close to a match to the American military, making the U.S. automatically seem like the bad guys (even when they are not the aggressor).

How were Afganistan and Iraq in 2002 the aggressors? Why wasn't the US the "bad guy" and the aggressor for deliberately spreading lies and disinformation in order to invade and occupy Iraq? And why didn't the Bush administration simply document what they knew about bin Laden to convince Afghanistan to peacefully hand him over, instead of backing heroin-producing warlords which were feared and hated by much of the Afghan population?

 

[Commodore]

Article



http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2013/08/24/gas-attack-syria.html

Satire Piece

Who are we to say other countries' cultures are wrong? What right do we have to impose our beliefs and system of morality on others? If the Syrian government has decided that it is necessary to use chemical weapons on civilians, then we are no more qualified to judge them any more than Saudi Arabia's treatment of women.

Even if it is wrong to gas civilians in a civil war, we have no responsibility to these people. They are halfway around the world, and we have more important issues to deal with at home. Our standard of living and internal political strife is more important to address than the lives of Syrians.

If we intervened, we might end up screwing things up like Iraq and arguably Libya. It's better to let the government do whatever they want - gas civilians, bomb civilians; it's none of our concern and we can wash our hands of it.

Discussion

Naturally, the Syrian government is accusing the rebels, and honestly I wouldn't put it past the rebels to enact this to prompt outside intervention. But the noose is tightening and there seems to be increased international demands for an investigation.

A while back, Obama has promised to take drastic action if the Syrian government resorts to chemical or biological weapons. The American government has weaseled its way out of past reports of possible chemical attacks, probably because there wasn't enough basis for a casus belli. But this recent one seems to be steaming and unavoidable. So what's going to happen? Ultimatum on approving an investigation? Proof it was the Syrian government?

War with Syria?

No war with Syria is not in the US's best interest right now.

As for your satire: I'm really interested to hear how a CIVIL WAR in which neither side has shown aggression towards the US or its interests is somehow our issue to deal with. Even though you mock this argument in your satire, we really do have more important issues, both domestically and internationally, to deal with.

Also, chemical weapons use in Syria is even more of a reason for the US to stay out. I mean, why should we risk the horrific deaths caused by chemical weapons to thousands of our sons and daughters to fight a war against a nation that has shown us no malice? Now if either the rebels or the Syrian government start threatening our citizens and interests then I would be all for military action.

Basically, I am a 'war as a last resort' kind of person; and even then there better be a damn good reason to put our people in harm's way. Right now in both Syria and Egypt that reason has not been provided. I also find it a tad unfair that the world is DEMANDING US action in Syria. If the nations of the world are so horrified by what's going on in Syria, why don't they send their sons and daughters to die for the Syrian people? That's right, I'm looking at you Europe. I'll be a little more supportive of US boots on the ground in Syria if I see German, French, and British boots on the ground there first.

 

[Kyriakos]

Well if the USA ends up invading/bombing Syria, i guess it's another victory for Freedom.

It's like not very many people notice that the world is in some sort of deadly spiral, and one more war is not likely to actually reverse that course.

It is pretty much a horror movie now. Keep on walking in the dark labyrinth. Don't worry, worse that can happen is to keep on getting lost. No chance a horned being is also walking, and the distance between it and yourself is always diminishing.

 

[DemonicAppleGuY]

It's like not very many people notice that the world is in some sort of deadly spiral, and one more war is not likely to actually reverse that course.

So the world is worse than it was, say, one-hundred years ago? I think you're really suffering from the bias of perspective here.

 

[strijder20]

How were Afganistan and Iraq in 2002 the aggressors? Why wasn't the US the "bad guy" and the aggressor for deliberately spreading lies and disinformation in order to invade and occupy Iraq? And why didn't the Bush administration simply document what they knew about bin Laden to convince Afghanistan to peacefully hand him over, instead of backing heroin-producing warlords which were feared and hated by much of the Afghan population?

I wasn't accusing those two countries to be the aggressor, that was pointed more at the 'others' section. I'll be fair and honest and admit that I don't know all the U.S. wars, so I just added that - even if they are the aggressors - clause to prevent people accusing me of deliberately ignoring some obscure war where the U.S. wasn't the aggressor.

 

[Kyriakos]

So the world is worse than it was, say, one-hundred years ago? I think you're really suffering from the bias of perspective here.

Do you think the world is not worse than it was before 2001 and the following spread of FREEDOM?

Cause i doubt many hold your view if that is the case.

I don't recall any worse period of it in my own lifetime anyway. I guess i should enthuse on thinking we are better than in the final days of the build-up to WW1, 100 years ago.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Given the intense political pressure put on Saudi Arabia and Sudan to get bin Laden out of their country, and the danger he would have been under had he gone anywhere else but Afghanistan, by accepting him the Taliban was providing a public announcement of support for bin Laden.

EDIT: Whether or not the Taliban thought bin Laden was 'harmless' is quite irrelevant considering he was wanted to international crimes and they publicly provided him with sanctuary.

Only there were no criminal charges outstanding against bin Laden at that time.

Not quite. Initially, the Taliban said they would try bin-Laden when given evidence, then they moved on to saying that they would hand over bin-Laden to a third party court. All of this was moot because the Taliban was currently being overrun by the United Islamic Front (Northern Alliance) and would have been incapable of bringing bin-Laden to trial. Given that the most sophisticated information gathering agencies took nine years to track bin-Laden down, color me unimpressed as to the ability of a collapsing Taliban to capture bin-Laden in an area they didn't really control.

"Not quite". It was only 8 days after the bombing of Afghanistan even began. But Bush wasn't interested. He had already declared bin Laden to be "guilty" and the Taliban guilty by association.

And bin Laden's whereabouts were fairly well known at the time. To claim it would have taken a great feat by the Taliban to track him down and arrest him is absurd. That wasn't true until he went into hiding after the US had invaded.

 

[strijder20]

Do you think the world is not worse than it was before 2001 and the following spread of FREEDOM?

Iraqi and Afghanistani populations combined are 60 million. Considering that is 1% of human population, I wouldn't say those 'FREEDOM' wars have such a major effect on the welfare of the human race. Other things, like the still rising GDP per capita on the positive side and the still rising global population on the negative side are much more important, IMO.

Yes, I know there are more people struck by these 'FREEDOM' wars than only Iraqi and Afghanistani. But not all of the Iraqi and Afghanistani experienced the full blow, after all.

 

[Winner]

That's right, I'm looking at you Europe. I'll be a little more supportive of US boots on the ground in Syria if I see German, French, and British boots on the ground there first.

You're acting as if Europe was screaming and urging the US to do something. I see no such thing. It's not our problem either. I mean yes, it is horrific, but unlike Yugoslavia, this is not happening at our doorstep.

If anything, it's Turkey who's been playing at being a "great power" in the region. Let's see how that role fits.

 

[Kyriakos]

Iraqi and Afghanistani populations combined are 60 million. Considering that is 1% of human population, I wouldn't say those 'FREEDOM' wars have such a major effect on the welfare of the human race. Other things, like the still rising GDP per capita on the positive side and the still rising global population on the negative side are much more important, IMO.

Yes, I know there are more people struck by these 'FREEDOM' wars than only Iraqi and Afghanistani. But not all of the Iraqi and Afghanistani experienced the full blow, after all.

I could agree with those points, but you left out another point, perhaps even more important: The freedom knee-jerk mentality post-2001 has effectively made the world a much darker and unstable place, including the USA itself. Compare how the USA was in the 90s and just before 2001, to how it is now. I don't live in the US, nor have i ever been there, but it seems quite obvious that the massive amount of articles about it point to the vortex of danger -and even in the future potential chaos- it is sinking along with pretty much the rest of the west. And this was not so in the near past, not by a long shot.