I feel like instead of granting Russia the Soviet Union's place on the UN Security Council the Western powers should have used the opportunity to let the seat be vacant. There would still have been an "alternate viewpoint" in China, and we wouldn't have to worry about Putin waving his dick around on a world forum.
Originally posted by Lestov16No I don't want anyone to intervene at all. I don't even like that the rebels are being given weapons. I just find it... confusing that everybody goes along with the "save innocent lives" line espoused by every politician and policy maker in every country. I get why they say it--people believe them for some reason--I just don't get why so many people believe them.
Lord Lucien, do you agree with jaden? Because he seems to disapprove of intervention, while you say it should have happened sooner.
Pretty much. I'm all in favor of letting that country commit gradual suicide, so long as it's not assisted suicide. Ideally everyone would leave it alone and let it do its thang, but I get that some nations wouldn't want Russia or Iran openly jumping in to the fray. And I get that you wouldn't want them cozying up to whoever emerged the victor, so you beat them to the punch by jumping in yourself. It just seems with Syria that regardless who wins, they won't be Western friendly, so why get involved at all (empty rhetoric about "lives" notwithstanding)? I don't think Russia or Iran would ever get directly involved, and if anything it would be Turkey or Israel left to do the cleanup. I'd prefer that.
Originally posted by Lord Lucien
It just seems with Syria that regardless who wins, they won't be Western friendly, so why get involved at all (empty rhetoric about "lives" notwithstanding)?
You seem to be more concerned with the politics than the people dying in the street. "Phuck em all! They're not from my country!" Again, pretty callous thinking.
Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Pretty much. I'm all in favor of letting that country commit gradual suicide, so long as it's not assisted suicide. Ideally everyone would leave it alone and let it do its thang, but I get that some nations wouldn't want Russia or Iran openly jumping in to the fray. And I get that you wouldn't want them cozying up to whoever emerged the victor, so you beat them to the punch by jumping in yourself. It just seems with Syria that regardless who wins, they won't be Western friendly, so why get involved at all (empty rhetoric about "lives" notwithstanding)? I don't think Russia or Iran would ever get directly involved, and if anything it would be Turkey or Israel left to do the cleanup. I'd prefer that.
The issue with not intervening, as I see it at least, is that this could potentially normalize the use of chemical weapons in warfare again. I guess other nations have used them (Iraq did in the Iran-Iraq war for instance) and it hasn't normalized the use, but there was never the type of media coverage and direct debate over it as there is now. In such a high profile case, if the West does nothing, it would severely undermine their ability to do something in the future if, say, Russia were to deploy them against Georgia or India in Kashmir.
I'm not trying to make the case for intervention, just saying there is a larger picture here than just one nation's civil war or regional conflict. The world is just paying too much attention at this point for there to be no large scale geopolitical ramifications.
Originally posted by Oliver NorthI see that issue, but personally it doesn't strike me as a good enough reason to get involved (though it is a more believable one than the "moral" points being espoused). If a country is already at war with the U.S. and the West, then they're going to use chemical weapons if they want to regardless of Syria. If it's smaller, non-ally nations fighting each other with chemical weapons, then I say the same thing now: let them do it to one another. Unless the U.S. (or whoever) is directly targeted, I don't want them directly targeting. Let the Syrians massacre each other with chemical weapons.
The issue with not intervening, as I see it at least, is that this could potentially normalize the use of chemical weapons in warfare again. I guess other nations have used them (Iraq did in the Iran-Iraq war for instance) and it hasn't normalized the use, but there was never the type of media coverage and direct debate over it as there is now. In such a high profile case, if the West does nothing, it would severely undermine their ability to do something in the future if, say, Russia were to deploy them against Georgia or India in Kashmir.I'm not trying to make the case for intervention, just saying there is a larger picture here than just one nation's civil war or regional conflict. The world is just paying too much attention at this point for there to be no large scale geopolitical ramifications.
Originally posted by Lestov16People die on the street all the time and in every country. I don't care about them, so why should Syria get special attention?
You seem to be more concerned with the politics than the people dying in the street. "Phuck em all! They're not from my country!" Again, pretty callous thinking.
Originally posted by Lord Lucien
People die on the street all the time and in every country. I don't care about them,
Whether or not you care, any competent government certainly does, hence why we have police officers and safety regulations. So there's no double standard.
so why should Syria get special attention?
It may be a matter of precedent more than anything else. I'm going to presume that there are international laws forbidding the employing of chemical weaponry on your own citizenry; if we let Syria off the hook, said international laws become quite meaningless, and the long term death toll would certainly not be trivial.
Originally posted by Lord Lucien
What double standard? Lestov was calling out my callousness and I was confirming it.??
You suggested it would be irrational to care about casualties in Syria and not to care about everyday deaths. I pointed out that people certainly do care about everyday deaths...
Yeah, it doesn't fit perfectly with your personal position, but I was more concerned with the subject matter as a whole.
Originally posted by Master HanI wasn't saying any of that.
You suggested it would be irrational to care about casualties in Syria and not to care about everyday deaths. I pointed out that people certainly do care about everyday deaths...Yeah, it doesn't fit perfectly with your personal position, but I was more concerned with the subject matter as a whole.
Originally posted by Paul CalfF*ck yeah!
Most of you have never been to the middles east, never met a Syrian, will never go to the middle east or meet a Syrian. Ain't the media wonderful? huh?
Originally posted by Lord Lucien
I wasn't saying any of that.
I wasn't really addressing your personal, disturbing callousness. I was referencing the implication from your argument that Syrian matters aren't important in the grand scheme of things.
If you didn't intend to say that, then I bow down and grovel for your forgiveness. But my point stands. Just take it as my using your post to talk about something else.
Originally posted by Lord Lucien
I see that issue, but personally it doesn't strike me as a good enough reason to get involved (though it is a more believable one than the "moral" points being espoused). If a country is already at war with the U.S. and the West, then they're going to use chemical weapons if they want to regardless of Syria. If it's smaller, non-ally nations fighting each other with chemical weapons, then I say the same thing now: let them do it to one another. Unless the U.S. (or whoever) is directly targeted, I don't want them directly targeting. Let the Syrians massacre each other with chemical weapons.
I agree with you in terms of the moral politicking, and like I said, I'm not sure this sways me to support intervention, it is more the issue that makes me even consider intervention.
Would you extend this to nuclear or biological weapons? In the case of the latter, a nation using a biological agent in a civil or regional war could easily cause it to spread if it were infectious/contagious enough.
I have no idea why the UK would push their vote before the UN even begins to bring in preliminary findings on the inspection. It's not as if they were going to act until after the US got the ball rolling anyway. It was a silly move on Cameron's part, and that's obvious whether you agree with his interventionist position or not.
There seems to be a lot of gross over simplification of the situation going on. At the moment it's not the Assad regime vs the rebels. It's the Assad regime vs some 40 different groups. Some are Syrian rebels but most are external groups with their own interests. Some are al-qaeda affiliated and other extremist groups whose purpose is either sectarian slaughter or getting their hands on Syrian weaponry to use elsewhere.
So what are the options to achieve what we're being told the western goal is. To stop further use of chemical weapons?
Can we bomb the weapon stockpiles? No short of nuclear attack all that will do is release the chemical weapons into the atmosphere and kill thousands more people.
Can we take out the other parts of the military? Yes. But then who's going to stop the extremist groups from then getting their hands on the chemical weapons if we kill the army defending them?
Can we take out the regime? Yes. Probably at the cost of a lot of civilian lives. But then what? We have those 40 different groups vying for power. This would lead to more civil unrest and sectarian slaughter that would make Iraq's ongoing sectarian war look like a nice day at the park.
So that leaves only the option of going in and sorting it out on the ground. Which will probably lead to another few thousand dead allied troops and another decade long insurgency/terrorist truck bomb massacres.
It's a nest of vipers that is best kept out of.
As for the moral argument about killing people to stop people getting killed. What absolute rubbish. Did we get involved in Liberia, Sudan, Sierra Leone, Zimbabwe, Rwanda and countless other countries where genocide has been rife over the last 30 years?
I also find it very odd that people suddenly swallow the media perpetuated notion that Assad is some kind of Hitler style maniacal tyrant when all of 3 years ago Syria was lauded as a beacon of relatively secular, stable Arab state ideal. Granted he could've stepped aside when the will of some of his people moved peacefully against him. Then we could have Syria the same peaceful, prosperous and stable Arab country that Egypt has turned into where 1000+ people don't get openly slaughtered in front of the world's media in a single day.
Oh no wait.
Let's face facts. There's 2 reasons why the western allies are chomping at the bit to smash Syria. To protect Israel and to **** one over on Iran. They don't give a shit about saving Syrians. They blow more Syrians to pieces in 1 day of cruise missile and drone strikes than Assad or the rebels could even dream about.
Only other thing I can say is thank **** the UK parliament voted no to war any circumstances. It restored some of my faith so representative politics in the U.K.