Use of Chemical Weapons in Syria

[Rashiminos]

The Vietnam War used the same absurd excuse as used in Korea. Besides, the reason that the Soviet Union was even involved in Korea was because the country was divided in half after WWII, like Germany was.

As far as the first Gulf War is concerned, Saddam Hussein was our stooge who thought he had permission from the US to invade Kuwait.

Does everyone here agree that the US is in the habit of keeping "stooges?"

This should not excuse his actions in Kuwait.

Pardon me Baal, but was it necessary to say it this way and imply that someone in the thread thought it might?

 

[Formaldehyde]

South Korea until the early 80s and Iraq after 1980 certainly don't disprove it. Now do they? Nor do the dictatorships the US put into power or reinforced in over a dozen other countries since the end of WWII.

 

[Chiteng]

Kind-hearted people might of course think there was some ingenious way to disarm or defeat the enemy without too much bloodshed, and might imagine this is the true goal of the art of war. Pleasant as it sounds, it is a fallacy that must be exposed: War is such a dangerous business that mistakes that come from kindness are the very worst.
War is an act of violence which in its application knows no bonds.
The invention of gunpowder and the constant improvement of firearms are enough in themselves to show that the advance of civilization has done nothing practical to alter or deflect the impulse to destroy the enemy, which is central to the very idea of war.
The worst of all conditions in which a belligerent can find himself is to be utterly defenseless.


This man knew what he was talking about. Nothing Assad is doing should be a surprise.
The alternative is to allow an angry crowd to tear him limb from limb, and watch them
put his loved ones heads on pikes.

The only way to defeat him is use of superior force

 

[Rashiminos]

That is, people should volunteer for the mission, and we shouldn't force anyone to do it if they don't want to. Now ideally, we'd live in a world where we've raised our children to be selfless and would volunteer regardless, which threatens the concept of free will/free choice. But that's why it's a more complex discussion.

Would you characterize the intervention in Vietnam as a "selfless" cause?

 

[Silurian]

I am merely pointing out the inconsistency in claiming that the Korean War was justified while the Vietnam War was not when that was the very same rationalization used in both conflicts.

Sorry I do not understand this.

If one thing is rationalization by something and another thing is rationalised by the something but wrongly, why is the first rationalization wrong.

 

[kramerfan86]

I agree it's not a great comparison, but I feel it's a valid one in terms of length of stay. If the occupation of Iraq was as peaceful, then we could have left when we did, and we could have charged forward with the claim "mission accomplished" when we did. However, in reality it was very premature.

Too me there is a line though between misguided impatience and sticking out a lost cause too long. Look at Afghanistan, the US has been in Afghanistan for over a decade and can anyone truly say its any closer to a functioning democratic state with proper infrastructure than it was year 2 or 3 into the war? Then when analyzing whether to intervene in a conflict you have to examine whether the rebuilding effort will trend towards an Afghanistan or a Germany. In the case of Syria with its sharp ethnic and religious divisions I fear it trends more towards Afghanistan.

 

[gay_Aleks]

Kind-hearted people might of course think there was some ingenious way to disarm or defeat the enemy without too much bloodshed, and might imagine this is the true goal of the art of war. Pleasant as it sounds, it is a fallacy that must be exposed: War is such a dangerous business that mistakes that come from kindness are the very worst.
War is an act of violence which in its application knows no bonds.
The invention of gunpowder and the constant improvement of firearms are enough in themselves to show that the advance of civilization has done nothing practical to alter or deflect the impulse to destroy the enemy, which is central to the very idea of war.
The worst of all conditions in which a belligerent can find himself is to be utterly defenseless.


This man knew what he was talking about. Nothing Assad is doing should be a surprise.
The alternative is to allow an angry crowd to tear him limb from limb, and watch them
put his loved ones heads on pikes.

The only way to defeat him is use of superior force

Pardon me, but I've always believed that we live in a more... civilized decade.

Truly, humans do stay humans, and they'll still commit atrocities.

But the crowd (of terrorists) tearing him limb by limb and putting his loved one's heads on pikes? That's just barbaric.

We have missiles for this kind of things. Much more civilized.

 

[Antilogic]

Does everyone here agree that the US is in the habit of keeping "stooges?"

I might not phrase it that way, but the US government does engage in realpolitik. I think it is quite inarguable otherwise.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Sorry I do not understand this.

If one thing is rationalization by something and another thing is rationalised by the something but wrongly, why is the first rationalization wrong.

How can the same rationalization be "wrong" in one instance but not in another quite similar one? Either you think the US should have intervened militarily to stop the supposed spread of communism, or you don't.

 

[Rashiminos]

How can the same rationalization be "wrong" in one instance but not in another quite similar one?

Similar is not the same. Differences in context can allow for different answers.

Edit: If you can argue that both situations are similar enough that a solution for one ought to be a solution for the other (or what isn't a solution for one must necessarily not be a solution for the other.), then by all means.

Either you think the US should have intervened militarily to stop the supposed spread of communism, or you don't.

A question is posed in absolutist terms.

 

[Chiteng]

Pardon me, but I've always believed that we live in a more... civilized decade.

Truly, humans do stay humans, and they'll still commit atrocities.

But the crowd (of terrorists) tearing him limb by limb and putting his loved one's heads on pikes? That's just barbaric.

We have missiles for this kind of things. Much more civilized.

Morality in war is illusion. The object is to win.

Missiles are only more sanitized.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Morality in war is illusion. The object is to win.

Missiles are only more sanitized.

Not seeing how sanitized that is....

 

[Dachs]

Spoiler lame image :

Not-so-lame:

 

[Silurian]

How can the same rationalization be "wrong" in one instance but not in another quite similar one? Either you think the US should have intervened militarily to stop the supposed spread of communism, or you don't.

If the people voted for communism I would support the right of the people in that country to determine their own system of government. If the US intervened I would be against it.


If the people voted for a capitalist government and there was a communist coup I would support the people fighting the communist takeover.

I believe that the rationalization of fighting communism would be wrong in the first case.

 

[Formaldehyde]

I would agree. Only the people in Korea and Vietnam didn't vote on that basis on either side. Their fate was decided by others who had their own agendas.

 

[Kaitzilla]

Seeing a lot of indications that the U.S. is going to start bombing Syria soon.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324165204579033892663968898.html

U.S. officials have indicated that a determination the Syrian regime launched the chemical attack outside Damascus on Wednesday could lead to U.S. and international strikes against the government of President Bashar al-Assad.

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry spoke Thursday with the Syrian foreign minister, State Department officials said Saturday. It was a rare contact and seen as a last resort.

Mr. Kerry pressed the Syrians to allow international inspectors "immediate and unimpeded access" to the area where last week's suspected chemical attack—which claimed more than 1,000 lives—took place, a State Department official said. Mr. Kerry told the Syrians to stop blocking access and destroying evidence at the site.

This all seems rather familiar. I wonder if UN weapons inspectors make jokes about it?

Keep in mind that Obama didn't try to get Congressional approval before bombing Libya 2 years ago. It could happen very suddenly.


On the other hand, it took over a decade after Saddam gassed the Kurds before he was toppled.

 

[kramerfan86]

Honestly it wouldnt shock me if the rebels had used hijacked chemical arms to frame Assad at this point. The war has turned Assad's way, their only hope is to get foreign intervention. I see a lot more motive for rebels to use chemicals arms than the guy who is winning the war.

 

[Ajidica]

Honestly it wouldnt shock me if the rebels had used hijacked chemical arms to frame Assad at this point. The war has turned Assad's way, their only hope is to get foreign intervention. I see a lot more motive for rebels to use chemicals arms than the guy who is winning the war.

Depending on how much control Assad has over the army/chemical weapons, it could be rogue elements in the army. Given how little we know about the situation in Syria, almost anything is possible.

 

[Lord Baal]

Does everyone here agree that the US is in the habit of keeping "stooges?"

I would not normally term them such, but the US certainly has many client-states, some under more direct control than others.

Pardon me Baal, but was it necessary to say it this way and imply that someone in the thread thought it might?

I implied nothing. I said that Saddam being a US stooge did not excuse his actions. I made absolutely no claims whatsoever about the thoughts of people in this thread.

Sorry I do not understand this.

If one thing is rationalization by something and another thing is rationalised by the something but wrongly, why is the first rationalization wrong.

It's not.

How can the same rationalization be "wrong" in one instance but not in another quite similar one? Either you think the US should have intervened militarily to stop the supposed spread of communism, or you don't.

Contextually different circumstances.

South Korea was invaded in 1950, very shortly after the Soviet withdrawal from North Korea. Both North and South Korea were newly independent states, their independence won for them by outsiders after decades of Japanese rule. The Japanese were very effective at stamping out resistance, to the point that there were very few politically-experienced individuals in Korea that weren't collaborators.

Mainland China had just fallen to the communists after a bloody civil war and the USSR had been systematically establishing control over various puppet-regimes in eastern Europe. Both France and Italy had large communist parties with very realistic chances at gaining political power and even the British Labor Party was on very friendly economic terms with the USSR. The latter had been chased out of Iran very unwillingly after WWII and was still interfering there, as well as in Greek and Turkish politics, as well as supporting communist revolutionary movements abroad. The Marshal Plan had yet to transform Europe and the Japanese socialist and communist parties were gaining electoral success.

In this context, the invasion of South Korea appeared to be yet another step towards creating a communist bloc across the Eurasian continent. Incidentally, the US was well-aware of Stalin's discussions with Hitler regarding a Eurasian bloc during WWII.

Fast-forward to Vietnam. The USSR and PRC are at each other's throats more than they are at the West's. France and Italy, while still having a communist underground, are firmly-entrenched in the West. Japan has been rehabilitated and is under the control of a communist-fearing, pro-Western government which relies on American support, as has West Germany. The establishment of NATO acts as a bulwark against further Soviet expansion. No country besides Cuba, which was a local phenomenon, has 'gone communist' since the PRC defeated the guomindang in 1949. The Soviets have instead been forced to use military force to maintain their grip on what they already have.

Stalin is dead. His successor, Krushchev, is much friendlier with the West and has floated the idea of a joint US-USSR attack on China to prevent the latter acquiring nuclear weapons. Vietnam has nowhere near the strategic importance of Korea, which was described as "a dagger pointing at Japan's heart." The USSR has begun to form a bloc to counter China and the West, courting India and Egypt in the process, two distinctly non-communist states. The former is a democracy. The Vietnamese have fought a bloody revolution against the French for more than a decade, culminating in a humiliating defeat for the French. While Ho Chi Minh is on relatively friendly terms with the Chinese, the rest of the Vietnamese leadership is very mistrustful with the PRC. Ho has shown a willingness to mediate issues in international arenas.

These two situations are entirely different. Literally the only similarities are that they both involve divided states, the northern state is communist and the southern a more traditional dictatorship, and both are in Asia. One might as well say that because the post-WWI Allied invasions of Russia and the 1941 German invasion of the USSR were both rationalised as preventing the spread of communism that the two situations are either both right or both wrong. For someone who denounces George W. Bush, you seem to practice his absolutism and use of false dichotomies an awful lot.

 

[r16]

... the Russians will not fight ...

the Russian FM on the news with remarks that they won't fight anybody for anybody . Well , there are "adequate" reserves , with the norms calculated on the basis of the historical reputation of the Red Army . No offence intented , but you see am of a generation supposed to be born into a fully working Turkey , in light of a recent post of mine , and we are supposed to be Allies by law with Americans for more than 60 years now . And the things Americans do to us show words count for nothing ...