Why shouldn't the US intervene in Syria?

[JollyRoger]

Guess bin Laden was wrong at the end.

 

[Defiant47]

There's no "war is wrong" option. That seems like a fundamental oversight.

My mistake. I did not expect somebody would be willing to "avoid war" at any cost conceivable.

If you are indeed opposed to war even when it would save many lives and it would stop the use of chemical weapons, then indeed there is no adequate option for you (although, arguably the joke option regarding maximizing the murder of baby lives might apply if such baby deaths do lead to a war being avoided). If, however, you're only opposed to war because it ends up killing many lives, then there's the option regarding the saving of lives.

 

[Winston Hughes]

My mistake. I did not expect somebody would be willing to "avoid war" at any cost conceivable.

That's because you didn't expect anyone would reject utilitarianism outright in favour of virtue ethics.

 

[ReindeerThistle]

Okay, here goes:

US troops aren't the only thing Saudi Arabia is funding.



And this little gem:


Okay, people, the debate is over: who is the terrorist state?

Check it out...

 

[Borachio]

My mistake. I did not expect somebody would be willing to "avoid war" at any cost conceivable.

If you are indeed opposed to war even when it would save many lives and it would stop the use of chemical weapons, then indeed there is no adequate option for you (although, arguably the joke option regarding maximizing the murder of baby lives might apply if such baby deaths do lead to a war being avoided). If, however, you're only opposed to war because it ends up killing many lives, then there's the option regarding the saving of lives.

There's a credible case to be made that "all war is wrong", and that it invariably does more harm than good.

It does require taking a very long and broad view, though. This very rarely applies in the political sphere, which is inevitably short term.

 

[Glassfan]

There's a credible case to be made that "all war is wrong", and that it invariably does more harm than good.

Could you amplify on this?

It's always seemed to me that in most wars, the aggressor is "wrong", but the defender is "right".

It was wrong of Germany to invade Poland in 1939. It was right for the Poles to defend themselves.

But perhaps you mean something else...

 

[timtofly]

The US could always fight on the side of the 2 million refugees that have no one on their side.

 

[Traitorfish]

My mistake. I did not expect somebody would be willing to "avoid war" at any cost conceivable.

If you are indeed opposed to war even when it would save many lives and it would stop the use of chemical weapons, then indeed there is no adequate option for you (although, arguably the joke option regarding maximizing the murder of baby lives might apply if such baby deaths do lead to a war being avoided). If, however, you're only opposed to war because it ends up killing many lives, then there's the option regarding the saving of lives.

Nah, see, like Winston says, you're still assuming utilitarianism. I don't think war is bollocks simply because I think it is uniformly more costly- I imagine that could be disproved in all of ten minutes- but because the entire logic of waging war is morally repugnant.

Could you amplify on this?

It's always seemed to me that in most wars, the aggressor is "wrong", but the defender is "right".

It was wrong of Germany to invade Poland in 1939. It was right for the Poles to defend themselves.

But perhaps you mean something else...

"Germany" and "Poland" are not moral agents, so what you're describing here is merely legitimacy, not morality.

 

[Winston Hughes]

Nah, see, like Winston says, you're still assuming utilitarianism. I don't think war is bollocks simply because I think it is uniformly more costly- I imagine that could be disproved in all of ten minutes- but because the entire logic of waging war is morally repugnant.

Of course, as a corollary of that, you are obliged to watch the whole world go down in flames if the only means of prevention goes against the core principles by which you define your virtue.

Yours may be a coherent stance, intellectually, but it's also a profoundly irrational one for any self-interested being who's not privileged enough to either (a) live in a world where everyone shares this attitude, or (b) have a large number of utilitarians covering his arse regardless.

'Violence is never justifiable' is a great maxim, just so long as you're not the guy getting his head kicked in whilst everyone else refuses on principle to help you out.

 

[Traitorfish]

I'm not sure how you got from "war" to "violence"?



(Also, "utilitarianism is right because utilitarianism dictates that utilitarianism is right" is a piss-weak argument, and you know it.)

 

[Winston Hughes]

I'm not sure how you got from "war" to "violence"?

I'm just using it to demonstrate the point, since the same logic can be applied to both.

(Also, "utilitarianism is right because utilitarianism dictates that utilitarianism is right" is a piss-weak argument, and you know it.)

I'm not arguing that utilitarianism is 'right' (you should recall I've expressed on several occasions that I'm unconvinced by its claims to sufficiency). I'm just pointing out one important corollary of your ethical stance.

 

[Traitorfish]

I'm just using it to demonstrate the point, since the same logic can be applied to both.

That seems unhelpfully distracting.

I'm not arguing that utilitarianism is 'right' (you should recall I've expressed on several occasions that I'm unconvinced by its claims to sufficiency). I'm just pointing out one important corollary of your ethical stance.

Surely, "may conflict with self-interest" is a corollary of any ethical stance?

 

[Defiant47]

Nah, see, like Winston says, you're still assuming utilitarianism.

Indeed I am. And indeed it is an oversight.

Although I disagree with it, I understand your stance then.

 

[Winston Hughes]

That seems unhelpfully distracting.

Sorry you find it so. It was just meant to be a simple iteration of the logic, applied to something which is easier to imagine in concrete terms.

Surely, "may conflict with self-interest" is a corollary of any ethical stance?

Not necessarily - Ayn Rand springs to mind here - but certainly it will be a corollary of any socially-viable approach to ethics.

The relevant difference here, though, is one of degree. We need not demand total self-sacrifice in adherence to a given set of principles, and, indeed, that would seem most likely to render any ethical stance irrational, sooner or later. I'd say a sufficient account of morality (impossible as that may be to formulate) would have to balance the requirement for altruism (inc. not causing harm) with the rational necessity of protecting the most fundamental self-interest. My point was that adherence to the 'war is wrong' principle can be rational only if you're lucky enough not to be in a position where your own survival is contingent upon someone else being prepared to go to war in your defence.

 

[Borachio]

Could you amplify on this?

Probably not convincingly. But let's see how far I get.

It's always seemed to me that in most wars, the aggressor is "wrong", but the defender is "right".

It's always seemed to me that in most wars, the aggressor is "their" side, while the defender is always "our" side. Most "aggressive" wars have been started because the "aggressor" feared being attacked.

It was wrong of Germany to invade Poland in 1939. It was right for the Poles to defend themselves.

According to the Germans at the time, the Poles attacked them first and they were just defending themselves. (Wasn't the whole idea of WW2 based on Germany smarting after the "stab in the back" of WW1, in any case? And then there was the perceived/real threat of Soviets and the traditional fear of the East? I could go on. But sooner or later Dachs will pop up and tell me I'm talking nonsense. But all I'm trying to indicate is that "the Germans simply attacked the Poles (out of the blue) who justifiably defended themselves" is far too simplistic, I fear. Even for me.)

In a similar way, the US defended (or defends?) itself and Afghanistan and Iraq by invading them?

Still, this isn't what you're after, I'd guess. I can only try, really, to deal with points as you raise them, though. It's a complicated issue.

 

[Glassfan]

Probably not convincingly. But let's see how far I get.

It's always seemed to me that in most wars, the aggressor is "their" side, while the defender is always "our" side. Most "aggressive" wars have been started because the "aggressor" feared being attacked.


According to the Germans at the time, the Poles attacked them first and they were just defending themselves. (Wasn't the whole idea of WW2 based on Germany smarting after the "stab in the back" of WW1, in any case? And then there was the perceived/real threat of Soviets and the traditional fear of the East? I could go on. But sooner or later Dachs will pop up and tell me I'm talking nonsense. But all I'm trying to indicate is that "the Germans simply attacked the Poles (out of the blue) who justifiably defended themselves" is far too simplistic, I fear. Even for me.)

In a similar way, the US defended (or defends?) itself and Afghanistan and Iraq by invading them?

Still, this isn't what you're after, I'd guess. I can only try, really, to deal with points as you raise them, though. It's a complicated issue.

I see. Never mind...

 

[Ayatollah So]

EU agrees Assad regime responsible for Syria chemical attack

UN's Del Ponte says evidence Syria rebels 'used sarin'

Testimony from victims of the conflict in Syria suggests rebels have used the nerve agent, sarin, a leading member of a UN commission of inquiry has said.

Carla Del Ponte told Swiss TV that there were "strong, concrete suspicions but not yet incontrovertible proof".

Del Ponte made her statement in May.

Robert Paul Wolff (an American lefty philosopher - but consider the quoted source, the New York Times) writes, regarding earlier gas attacks:

Much was made of the belief that the gas had been delivered by rocket. However, as The New York Times correspondent Ben Hubbard reported (April 27, 2013) ""Near the attack sites, activists found spent rockets that appeared to have been homemade and suspected that they delivered the gas." Would the regular army's chemical warfare command have used "homemade" rockets? That report seemed to point to some faction within the opposition rather than to the government.

I don't know why the US Government rushes to the conclusion that Assad perpetrated this latest attack. I do know that there are powerful interests who are very happy that they do, however. I'm not going to believe it until I see actual evidence. (And I still won't support a strike, even if that evidence is produced; but that's another issue.)

 

[Borachio]

I see. Never mind...

Well, OK. But why does that make you sad?

 

[Glassfan]

UN's Del Ponte says evidence Syria rebels 'used sarin'

Del Ponte made her statement in May.

Robert Paul Wolff (an American lefty philosopher - but consider the quoted source, the New York Times) writes, regarding earlier gas attacks:


I don't know why the US Government rushes to the conclusion that Assad perpetrated this latest attack. I do know that there are powerful interests who are very happy that they do, however. I'm not going to believe it until I see actual evidence. (And I still won't support a strike, even if that evidence is produced; but that's another issue.)

Del Ponte's "evidence" appears to be the "testimony of witnesses" - notoriously unreliable - especially if the witnesses are pro-government (as many admittedly are).

The western suspicion that the gas attacks are from the government is based not only on the fact that the government is known to actually possess such weapons, but also on the forensic evidence of chemical samples taken off the bodies of the victims by the Americans, British and now the UN inspectors.

There may also be intelligence evidence which we cannot know, but which will be shared with our allies, such as the monitoring of Syrian Army Coms during the attacks, Satelite observation of Syrian launch sites, radar tracking of the chemical rockets - possibly even spies within the Army itself.

You're correct that there are 'powerful interests', such as the Russians who are stonewalling for their ally and don't care about the evidence.

You're also correct is saying that even if it is 'proven' the Syrian Army used these chemical weapons, many in the world just do not care.

 

[innonimatu]

The western suspicion that the gas attacks are from the government is based not only on the fact that the government is known to actually possess such weapons, but also on the forensic evidence of chemical samples taken off the bodies of the victims by the Americans, British and now the UN inspectors.

What inspectors were those and who oversaw them?

There may also be intelligence evidence which we cannot know, but which will be shared with our allies, such as the monitoring of Syrian Army Coms during the attacks, Satelite observation of Syrian launch sites, radar tracking of the chemical rockets - possibly even spies within the Army itself.

Lies. Do you take us who read your posts to be so ignorant as to miss what the US administration did with 'intelligence' about Iraq back in 2003? Why do you even pretend that such 'intelligence evidence' supplied by US sources can now be take seriously?

You're correct that there are 'powerful interests', such as the Russians who are stonewalling for their ally and don't care about the evidence.

Other powerful interests at play here are the US military-intelligence complex and the New York financial giants aligned with the arabian royals. You should be in a very good position to know all about than.