Originally posted by jaden101
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.
To sound like a neo-con, there's really no excuse for the US not to act here, both ethically and politically. We sign international laws and make proud speeches condemning the use of chemical weapons, and when a mad dictator uses it to kill thousands of his own people...can the most powerful military in history reasonably just sit there and twiddle its thumbs? It makes our notions of justice a bit of a joke. "Don't f*ck with the United States, or...we'll call you names!"
Originally posted by Oliver NorthNo, I'd make an exception then. Something that could spread beyond borders easily and indiscriminately (and invisibly) needs to be put a stop to ASAP. Anything involving deadly microbes is worrisome, and even small tactical nukes create a horrible and tantalizing precedent. Chemical attacks kill hundreds or thousands of people, biological warfare and nuclear arms can kill the planet. Species survival>>>everything else.
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.
Originally posted by Omega VisionHonestly, I wouldn't. If a nation has degenerated to the point that its government feels it necessary to enslave/oppress/intern/murder its own citizens apropos of nothing beyond rule through fear, then that's a country that needs to die. A constitutional democracy (no matter how flawed) would need an incredible amount of public support/ignorance/apathy to turn in to an oppressive, mass-murdering, dictatorial hell. If those conditions aren't enough to spur on the people of an educated, informed, well connected country of 300 million+ in to revolutionary action, then they frankly deserve no foreign savior.
@ Lucien. I certainly wouldn't want your standard made into a universal law. If a military dictatorship in America was slaughtering people, I would hope that the European Union (or Hell even China if gets bad enough) would intervene to stop it.
And if it does spur them on, then it's a fight they need to experience themselves. They'd need to expend a great deal of blood and effort in order to fully realize what they allowed to happen, what they had lost, and what they stood to gain. Freedom from such a scenario mustn't be gifted, it needs to be fought and bled for. It's partially why I'm against intervening in Syria, as it currently stands. If the Syrian people really do want a change of government and collective attitude, then they to fight and die to achieve it. It's the only way it will stick long term, the only way they'll appreciate what they gained.
And as Jaden said, the rebel groups are disparate. It's not a nation fighting tyranny and inequity, it's a multitude of special interest groups jockying for a chance to get revenge/replace the current rulers. And there's plenty of Syrians who do support the regime, so change for them would be disastrous. It's an incredibly grey situation, morally and politically. And it's because of that I'd advocate sitting it out, so long as remains localized and conventional.
Originally posted by Omega Vision
Did you mean to say Arabs? Because even then this would be incredible hyperbole. As it is, it's nonsense.
Yes. Meant to say Arabs in general. As it stands, the US are averaging a drone strike per day in Yemen. A country that the US hasn't declared war with and that most Americans probably don't even know they are attacking. Estimates for Pakistan drone strike victims, another country the US not only isn't at war with but considers an ally is over 3700. 90% of which are innocent civilians of which 10% were children. This is before a country they are actually still officially at war in. Namely Afghanistan. Where the drone strikes are nearly 500 per year and have killed civilians at 10x the rate of a similar number of manned strikes.
Then there's the other countries that drones have been deployed in. 145 drone strikes in a matter of 3 months in Libya during the revolution. Missions in Algeria, Mali, Niger.
Not to mention that in 3 years in Iraq up to 2011 they launched 17000 drone attacks.
So yeah. America. **** yeah!...tumbleweed.
Originally posted by Master Han
To sound like a neo-con, there's really no excuse for the US not to act here, both ethically and politically. We sign international laws and make proud speeches condemning the use of chemical weapons, and when a mad dictator uses it to kill thousands of his own people...can the most powerful military in history reasonably just sit there and twiddle its thumbs? It makes our notions of justice a bit of a joke. "Don't f*ck with the United States, or...we'll call you names!"
Why should the American taxpayer foot the bill for Syria's problems? Why should American lives be sacrificed? Everyone's screaming about a few hundred who were gassed. What about the tens of thousands who were shot and bombed. What about the thousands of Rawandans who were hacked to death? Then there's Sudan.
China wants to be the world's superpower, let them deal with it.
Originally posted by Archaeopteryx
[B]Why should the American taxpayer foot the bill for Syria's problems? Why should American lives be sacrificed?
I don't understand this "us vs. them, only American lives matter" mentality.
Everyone's screaming about a few hundred who were gassed. What about the tens of thousands who were shot and bombed. What about the thousands of Rawandans who were hacked to death? Then there's Sudan.
Who says I/we shouldn't care about those genocides either?
China wants to be the world's superpower, let them deal with it.
Yeah...that's, not a great idea.