Hypocrite-in-chief responds to reporter about attacking Syria

[Alan C.]

Reporter To Obama: How Does It Feel To Be A Nobel Peace Prize Winner Who's About To Attack Syria?

 

He is concerned about children and innocent civilians being subjected to gas. What about the children and innocent civilians he subjected to drone strikes?

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWTDUyuPJSg

[Kevin Beal]

"we can't sit by and do nothing", therefor we need to bomb the shit out of their country...

 

And around 30% of people polled are for airstrikes in Syria:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/03/syria-airstrike-polls_n_3861639.html

 

It's so amazingly evil, I can't even comprehend it.

 

How? How could anyone talk themselves into supporting another war?!

[FredBastiat]

There has to be someone picking which children to kill. After all, we can't expect those children to kill themselves, can we?

[gigaballs]

We should be surprised if he said otherwise.

[Guest darkskyabove]

Notice the first thing he attempts is to put the blame on everyone: "The challenge that all of us face..." Please explain to me, exactly, what challenge "I" face when confronted with people, thousands of milles away, who are intent on killing each other. (It would not be much of a challenge if they showed up on my doorstep: all bullies are cowards!)

 

The only challenge "I" face is: funding another war; funding a government that has no clue; funding a demagogue, caught up in the "cult of personality"; sacrificing more of my liberty to warmongers and spies; waching the world go to hell in a handbasket due to the morons in charge!.

[STer]

It's interesting that on this board, if a mother so much as verbally abuses a child, people are applauded loudly for stepping in. But if a person uses chemical weapons to kill 400 children, nobody seems too concerned. Some, like darkskyabove, say that since it was far away, it's basically not his business.

 

This is a very interesting comparison.

 

It surprises me that on a board so incredibly sensitive to the treatment of children, nobody seems to be concerned at all that hundreds of children may have been victims of chemical weapons in Syria.

 

Is it that you don't believe it happened? Or is it that, since they're far away, you don't care about them? If you do care, do you just not think it's worth any intervention? If you do think it's worth intervening, then what type of intervention would you support?

 

I'm sure I'll hear "Well in the course of intervening, you might kill some innocent civilians." OK. But if 400 innocent civilian children were just killed and we stop 400 more from being killed, how many innocent civilians are you willing to risk to save those 400?

 

It's odd to see such complex strategic questions being reduced to such oversimplifications. Please explain.

[PatrickC]

STer, to take something so far out of context, I am surprised frankly.

 

For one thing it is yet to be confirmed who did what to whom, despite the rhetoric. Second, if all it takes for a man who has otherwise been killing innocents for some 6 years with bullets, bombs and depleted uranium to get upset when someone breaks a Geneva convention. A convention that the US has repeatedly been breaking itself (extraordinary rendition). Come now STer, this man and his ilk have little interest in humanity let alone the lives of children.

 

(edit) But thirdly, since when are you and me responsible for what happens within the wider world, including the bad parenting of our neighbours.. Should we use force against them?

[seventwentyseven]

People are applauded here for stepping in to stop possible abuse, yes. But that is completely different than suggesting that her neighborhood should be destroyed.

[Kevin Beal]

Is it that you don't believe it happened? Or is it that, since they're far away, you don't care about them? If you do care, do you just not think it's worth any intervention? If you do think it's worth intervening, then what type of intervention would you support?

 

If I thought bombing to shit out of people would stop all of this, I still couldn't do it.

[PatrickC]

[Guest darkskyabove]

Thanks xelent; and, thanks Stefan.

 

STer: Do you think that your emotions are an effective means to deal with reality? More importantly, do you think YOUR emotions are an effective guide for other people to deal with reality?

[STer]

STer, to take something so far out of context, I am surprised frankly.

 

For one thing it is yet to be confirmed who did what to whom, despite the rhetoric. Second, if all it takes for a man who has otherwise been killing innocents for some 6 years with bullets, bombs and depleted uranium to get upset when someone breaks a Geneva convention. A convention that the US has repeatedly been breaking itself (extraordinary rendition). Come now STer, this man and his ilk have little interest in humanity let alone the lives of children.

 

(edit) But thirdly, since when are you and me responsible for what happens within the wider world, including the bad parenting of our neighbours.. Should we use force against them?

In my post, I asked if you doubt that it happened. If you doubt the facts, that's reasonable. But then the focus should be on finding out the facts. In any case, there is a serious question here of whether chemical weapons were used on children. And even if not, there is reason to believe children are being harmed. Yet I see very little talk about these children here. Why the apparent lack of concern?

 

In addition, even if you are cynical enough to believe that Obama cares nothing for the lives of these children, I would still think you'd be glad when he speaks about protecting them. After all, if you knew someone you felt was insufficiently concerned with children and one day you saw them witness harm to children and they spoke out about it, I would think you'd say it's a step in the right direction. I would think the attitude would be "well at least he's bringing attention to the wrongness of killing children."

 

I find it a strange contradiction that on this board, people talk constantly about it being crucial for us to improve the plight of children, not only our own, but even future generations. But now, when there are children being harmed in Syria (unless you don't think that is happening) the attitude seems to be that it isn't our business. It doesn't seem consistent to me is all.

[PatrickC]

STer, this is most unlike you, you've just repeated yourself.

[STer]

People are applauded here for stepping in to stop possible abuse, yes. But that is completely different than suggesting that her neighborhood should be destroyed.

Talk about an oversimplification. If a person is abusing their children, is asked repeatedly to stop, does not stop, then are you saying at no point is it reasonable to use force to protect the children? And when you use force to do that, there is always a risk of that intervention itself leading to some harm. The calculation is whether the harm of intervention is likely to be greater or less than the harm already happening. If someone is aggressing against others and won't respond to non-forceable intervention, there is no way around the calculation having to be made.

 

So in Syria, if hundreds of children are being killed (again, it's ok if you doubt this to be the case, but then you should be very focused on finding the evidence to determine if it is true or not) how much risk of harm is justified? It's overly general to talk in isolation about "her neighborhood being destroyed." Are you saying that we would use the pretext of saving children to go in and purposely destroy civilian neighborhoods for its own sake? Or are you saying that in the course of targeting strategically important areas, civilian neighborhoods sometimes inadvertently get hit?

 

Just remember in the calculation, there is a cost to not intervening as well as intervening. It's easy to point to any collateral damage from intervening in isolation and say that shows intervention was bad. But it's intellectually dishonest not to also point out the damage that continues to happen if nobody intervenes.

 

If you look at both sides, weigh the pros and cons, and show that in total non-intervention is better, I can respect that. But I am not seeing both sides weighed here. And that's strange on a board so dedicated to the welfare of children when children's lives are involved here. I'm just trying to balance this conversation out because the lives of the children who may be harmed in Syria in heinous ways - not to even mention the adults - should not be left out of the discussion.

If I thought bombing to shit out of people would stop all of this, I still couldn't do it.

That doesn't quite answer my questions clearly.

 

My questions are:

 

1) Do you not think it's worth intervening? - Are you saying then that you think intervention is not merited? Even if chemical weapons were used to kill these people, including hundreds of children, we should do nothing? If so, then I'd just like to get clear on that as your view. If more children and others are killed using chemical weapons, should we continue to do nothing or is there a threshhold at which we should intervene?

 

2) If you do think we should intervene, but don't think "bombing to shit out of people," as you put it, is the most effective intervention, then what intervention would you suggest instead?

STer, this is most unlike you, you've just repeated yourself.

I repeated some of what I said - and pointed out that in my first sentence - because the response seemed to miss some of it. And I attempted to address the challenges raised. If I failed to address them, then raise them again and I'll try again.

Thanks xelent; and, thanks Stefan.

 

STer: Do you think that your emotions are an effective means to deal with reality? More importantly, do you think YOUR emotions are an effective guide for other people to deal with reality?

I'm completely lost as to the relevance of this question. I didn't mention my emotions anywhere. I pointed out a seeming inconsistency in the way people on FDR approach the welfare of children in their local supermarket vs. the welfare of children in Syria. If they see a mother yelling at a child at the store, they come on here posting enraged at her. But if they see children likely dying from chemical weapons in Syria - surely much worse than being yelled at - they instead focus on attacking Obama's speech about it, where he condemns such behavior (a view I would think people here would agree with) but I see no threads enraged at the children's treatment itself. My emotions were never raised. What is raised is the seeming inconsistency of the approach.

 

Why is it that if one child is mistreated on a TV show, I can expect a thread devoted to how terrible it is, but here we have a powerful state possibly attacking its own children, and even here, where people so hate states, there is nobody posting about how awful this is?

 

I specifically asked if people doubt that chemical weapons were used and harmed these children because to me it should not be about emotion, but about the facts. If people doubt that they were used, then that would explain the reaction (though it would also bring up the need to verify those facts.)

xelent, thanks for posting Stef's video on this. I look forward to watching it soon. Maybe it will clear up some of these questions.

[Kevin Beal]

1) Do you not think it's worth intervening? - Are you saying then that you think intervention is not merited? Even if chemical weapons were used to kill these people, including hundreds of children, we should do nothing? If so, then I'd just like to get clear on that as your view. If more children and others are killed using chemical weapons, should we continue to do nothing or is there a threshhold at which we should intervene?

 

2) If you do think we should intervene, but don't think "bombing to shit out of people," as you put it, is the most effective intervention, then what intervention would you suggest instead?

 

I'll answer your questions, but let's be honest about the fact that you are accusing people of hypocrisy. (Who specifically, I'm unsure).

 

1) No, no I don't think it's worth intervening. Especially if intervening means airstrikes and the kind of thing the US military does that they call "intervention". If intervention meant something more meaningful, and less psychopathic then maybe I'd be on board. I'm not sure what we're talking about though unless you are talking about airstrikes. You haven't proposed any other kind of intervention. As far as I can tell this is about the supposed hypocrisy of board members and nothing really to do with Syria. So let's not pretend like that's what it's about, ok?

 

2) I answered no to #1

 

Would you elaborate on your charge of hypocrisy? Let's just say I'm the hypocrite for the sake of argument. Me applauding the intervention in child abuse, and also supporting a non intervention policy with regard to Syria is inconsistent how? Because Syrian children are being murdered? Go on...

[STer]

I'll answer your questions, but let's be honest about the fact that you are accusing people of hypocrisy. (Who specifically, I'm unsure).

 

1) No, no I don't think it's worth intervening. Especially if intervening means airstrikes and the kind of thing the US military does that they call "intervention". If intervention meant something more meaningful, and less psychopathic then maybe I'd be on board. I'm not sure what we're talking about though unless you are talking about airstrikes. You haven't proposed any other kind of intervention. As far as I can tell this is about the supposed hypocrisy of board members and nothing really to do with Syria. So let's not pretend like that's what it's about, ok?

 

2) I answered no to #1

 

Would you elaborate on your charge of hypocrisy? Let's just say I'm the hypocrite for the sake of argument. Me applauding the intervention in child abuse, and also supporting a non intervention policy with regard to Syria is inconsistent how? Because Syrian children are being murdered? Go on...

There is so much in your response that presupposes things I did not say. I said there seems to be an inconsistency in how people respond to lesser abuses at the local store vs. much more serious abuses against children further away in the world. If people on this board were there and saw children with chemical weapons used against them, I assume they'd be outraged. But since it's so far away, they don't see it, so it has less impact than even seeing a mother yelling at her child in the store. That's the point I was making there.

 

In asking about your views, I went out of my way to separate two issues - whether to intervene, either now, or at any point vs. what kind of intervention, but in your response you ended up mixing them back up again, making it hard to get very clear on your stance.

 

The only thing I think I am clear on is that in no situation do you support airstrikes? And is that truly your view no matter how widespread the abuses became? If it reached a certain level of number of people killed, would you still say that?

 

As for the question of what other interventions might be possible other than airstrikes, you seem to be asking me when I was the one asking you that. If you are 100% against airstrikes, then I'm curious what other possibilities for intervention you see. It seems to me that if you do think intervention is ever worthwhile, but you are against airstrikes, you should suggest alternatives that you think will work better.

[Kevin Beal]

 

There is so much in your response that presupposes things I did not say.

 

I'm really not so sure about that. The converse may in fact be true.

 

 

 

I said there seems to be an inconsistency in how people respond to lesser abuses at the local store vs. much more serious abuses against children further away in the world. If people on this board were there and saw children with chemical weapons used against them, I assume they'd be outraged. But since it's so far away, they don't see it, so it has less impact than even seeing a mother yelling at her child in the store.

 

And I would call that hypocritical if I'm supporting one moral argument in one place and then the opposite moral argument in another. If that's not hypocritical, then I'm not sure what is. If you don't call that hypocrisy then I do and that is what I mean by it.

 

The problem here though is that obviously it doesn't matter where in the world a person is, an immoral act is immoral.

 

What you are doing is saying that me telling a woman that she may want to reconsider the way she yelled at her child for not coming to the car quickly enough, and me intervening (in some way that you never explain) in the chemical attacks in Syria against (in part) children, are the same and I should act the same in both instances. You have yet to make this case, you simply assert it. That is the entire basis of my last post: to prompt you into elaborating upon that point.

 

As far as what kind of intervention I would support, I guess I would support anything peaceful that is toward the cause of helping people (especially children who have the least choice). I don't know what that looks like, or even why I'm being asked to come up with it. So why? Why is it suddenly incumbent upon me to come up with a method of peaceful intervention in the Syrian conflict? I don't really know.

 

All I know is that there is a charge of hypocrisy that is never made explicit and then demands that people come up with ways of intervening in Syria which they would support since supporting airtstrikes is definitely out of the question.

 

My problem is that I don't know what I'm responding to. If I'm being hypocritical, then please, just talk to me like I'm 5 years old and explain it to me. Make your case as explicitly and simply as you can so that I may have some idea as to what I'm rebutting (or accepting).

[Guest darkskyabove]

The answer to all this back-and-forth over whom supports what is very simple. Anyone who wishes to intervene in Syria, or any other place on the planet, can pack a bag, buy a ticket, and go do what they claim should be done. Telling others how to act, think, and feel is never a productive enterprise.

[STer]

The answer to all this back-and-forth over whom supports what is very simple. Anyone who wishes to intervene in Syria, or any other place on the planet, can pack a bag, buy a ticket, and go do what they claim should be done. Telling others how to act, think, and feel is never a productive enterprise.

The question is, when someone is not only telling others how to act, think and feel, but using chemical weapons to force them, what happens? If nothing, then productive or not in your view, it is going to continue happening. You can never get away from this paradox. If you disagree with the use of force, then how do you respond when someone is using force and refuses to stop? And if they are using it against someone else and you are witnessing it, but it isn't happening directly to you, should you get involved or not? These are difficult ethical choices, but they can't be sidestepped if you are serious about ethics.

 

My main point in this thread is just to point out that there is so much critique and focus on Obama and his rhetorical response, and so little focus on Assad and his wrongdoings. I would think there would be equal focus, if not more focus on Assad. After all, Assad has already committed these atrocious acts (unless, again, you think we are being lied to.) Obama is still wrestling with what to do and giving talks (and in these talks condemning the abuse and harm of children, which is a message I think we would agree with, whatever else you believe about it.)

 

Where is the balance of concern for the wrongdoings of the Syrian state? Why is the only focus on the potential wrong that you believe may come in the US response? It just seems to miss half of the issue.

I'm really not so sure about that. The converse may in fact be true.

 

 

 

 

And I would call that hypocritical if I'm supporting one moral argument in one place and then the opposite moral argument in another. If that's not hypocritical, then I'm not sure what is. If you don't call that hypocrisy then I do and that is what I mean by it.

 

The problem here though is that obviously it doesn't matter where in the world a person is, an immoral act is immoral.

 

What you are doing is saying that me telling a woman that she may want to reconsider the way she yelled at her child for not coming to the car quickly enough, and me intervening (in some way that you never explain) in the chemical attacks in Syria against (in part) children, are the same and I should act the same in both instances. You have yet to make this case, you simply assert it. That is the entire basis of my last post: to prompt you into elaborating upon that point.

 

As far as what kind of intervention I would support, I guess I would support anything peaceful that is toward the cause of helping people (especially children who have the least choice). I don't know what that looks like, or even why I'm being asked to come up with it. So why? Why is it suddenly incumbent upon me to come up with a method of peaceful intervention in the Syrian conflict? I don't really know.

 

All I know is that there is a charge of hypocrisy that is never made explicit and then demands that people come up with ways of intervening in Syria which they would support since supporting airtstrikes is definitely out of the question.

 

My problem is that I don't know what I'm responding to. If I'm being hypocritical, then please, just talk to me like I'm 5 years old and explain it to me. Make your case as explicitly and simply as you can so that I may have some idea as to what I'm rebutting (or accepting).

I call it inconsistency. Hypocrisy is when you hold one view for yourself and a different one for others. Hypocrisy is a particular case of inconsistency, but not one that I think is really involved here. This is a case where there is one standard being applied in one situation involving others and a different one maybe (and I stress maybe) is being applied in a different situation involving a different set of others. So there is no self/other issue here. It's not about hypocrisy.

 

My point here is really about focus. If you see a woman yelling at her child in the store, your focus is heavily on the well-being of this child. Yet when you see this situation in Syria, for some reason your (not you specifically, but several people I saw posting) main focus ends up being on Obama's speech, rather than on the well-being of those children. I didn't even see a focus on both. It was pretty much only on Obama and the US response and nothing mentioned about the children being harmed. It's an attentional issue I'm pointing out.

 

Saying that you support interventions that are peaceful is sidestepping the question. Of course, if peaceful interventions work, there is no dilemma. The difficulty comes when we deal with ruthless dictators, psychopaths and others who do not respond to any peaceful interventions (or even exploit them to do further harm.)

 

The reason you're being asked to come up with peaceful interventions is that, if you are unable to, it leaves us in a situation with only two options - forceful intervention or no intervention.

 

Supporting airstrikes is not out of the question in general. You simply took it out of the question for yourself. I simply wanted to clarify if you support any other types of interventions. It sounds to me like you are saying that you are a pacifist then? You are in all cases against the use of force even in defense of those being harmed by force and when peaceful interventions fail?

 

You keep responding as if I called you hypocritical and the entire response is as if I said that, but I never said that. This is a strange case where I didn't say something, you are claiming I said it and telling me to back up my claim when I never made that claim. I claim there may be some inconsistent application of certain principles going on. But this is not the same as hypocrisy. Nor does it mean there is ill-intent since, as I've said, I think it may simply be about where people's focus is being drawn vs. where it is not being drawn. I'm trying to draw some attention to the part of this situation I haven't seen focused on enough.

[Kevin Beal]

Okay, I'm simply going to accept all of your logic.

 

Forceful intervention is going to cause many more deaths than letting evil Syrian murderers get away with murdering children. That was true for Iraq and Afghanistan so there's no reason to believe it won't hold true in Syria.

 

My intervention is talking with people about how we really need to stay the hell out of Syria.

 

How's that? Is that inconsistent?

[FiddlertheLeper]

 

The question is, when someone is not only telling others how to act, think and feel, but using chemical weapons to force them, what happens? If nothing, then productive or not in your view, it is going to continue happening. You can never get away from this paradox. If you disagree with the use of force, then how do you respond when someone is using force and refuses to stop? And if they are using it against someone else and you are witnessing it, but it isn't happening directly to you, should you get involved or not? These are difficult ethical choices, but they can't be sidestepped if you are serious about ethics.

 

My main point in this thread is just to point out that there is so much critique and focus on Obama and his rhetorical response, and so little focus on Assad and his wrongdoings. I would think there would be equal focus, if not more focus on Assad. After all, Assad has already committed these atrocious acts (unless, again, you think we are being lied to.) Obama is still wrestling with what to do and giving talks (and in these talks condemning the abuse and harm of children, which is a message I think we would agree with, whatever else you believe about it.)

 

Where is the balance of concern for the wrongdoings of the Syrian state? Why is the only focus on the potential wrong that you believe may come in the US response? It just seems to miss half of the issue.

I call it inconsistency. Hypocrisy is when you hold one view for yourself and a different one for others. Hypocrisy is a particular case of inconsistency, but not one that I think is really involved here. This is a case where there is one standard being applied in one situation involving others and a different one maybe (and I stress maybe) is being applied in a different situation involving a different set of others. So there is no self/other issue here. It's not about hypocrisy.

 

My point here is really about focus. If you see a woman yelling at her child in the store, your focus is heavily on the well-being of this child. Yet when you see this situation in Syria, for some reason your (not you specifically, but several people I saw posting) main focus ends up being on Obama's speech, rather than on the well-being of those children. I didn't even see a focus on both. It was pretty much only on Obama and the US response and nothing mentioned about the children being harmed. It's an attentional issue I'm pointing out.

 

Saying that you support interventions that are peaceful is sidestepping the question. Of course, if peaceful interventions work, there is no dilemma. The difficulty comes when we deal with ruthless dictators, psychopaths and others who do not respond to any peaceful interventions (or even exploit them to do further harm.)

 

The reason you're being asked to come up with peaceful interventions is that, if you are unable to, it leaves us in a situation with only two options - forceful intervention or no intervention.

 

Supporting airstrikes is not out of the question in general. You simply took it out of the question for yourself. I simply wanted to clarify if you support any other types of interventions. It sounds to me like you are saying that you are a pacifist then? You are in all cases against the use of force even in defense of those being harmed by force and when peaceful interventions fail?

 

You keep responding as if I called you hypocritical and the entire response is as if I said that, but I never said that. This is a strange case where I didn't say something, you are claiming I said it and telling me to back up my claim when I never made that claim. I claim there may be some inconsistent application of certain principles going on. But this is not the same as hypocrisy. Nor does it mean there is ill-intent since, as I've said, I think it may simply be about where people's focus is being drawn vs. where it is not being drawn. I'm trying to draw some attention to the part of this situation I haven't seen focused on enough.

 

Listen, i am going to say something that is really simple, the ability to use force is not an obligation.  If the Syrian people ask us to come in and liberate them from their government there might be a case, but even then committing to war is something that should be avoided at all costs.  Instead it's the first and often times only solution offered, If i saw a child getting attacked i would intervene in what ever way i could that would lessen or avoid harm to the child.  But that's not the case here, children were harmed, but there is not a constant use of chemical weapons against children, what happened (who ever did it) was abominable, but instead of bombing or attacking, (since neither have any chance of reducing the likely hood of this sort of thing happening again, and both have a very high chance of harming more children, both directly and indirectly) We should be providing the best methods of securing the children possible, building shelters where the civilians not engaged in the conflict can weather the storm, or helping them to leave the country and seek a better life somewhere else, things of that nature.  Violence is never the answer, sometimes violence is used but only to confront violence, and even in those situations it is usually not successful in reducing the harm to those who are in danger.  There are so many possibilities of what could be done if this had anything to do with children being harmed. If you really believe the Government is going to Syria to save children, I think you need to check your reality.  We are going there to exploit them, and to impose our will upon them, same as with every other American Imperialistic venture.  And trying to hide that behind the shield of "helping children" is also abominable.  And every person, American or not, who stands up and says we cannot or should not allow ourselves to be stirred by the manipulations of the government into going to an unjust war for profit, is a hero. Those who cry for war, are generally mislead and tricked into believing good can come of it.  But those who work from logic and evidence know this simply isn't the case, no good will come of our involvement in Syria, we can't save those children already killed, and we can't protect the Syrian population from their own leaders, these are things we need to equip the population to do themselves.  Instead we come in, bomb and kill our way to "Victory" and wind up leaving the very people we were "trying to protect" worse off than they were before.  Even if we managed to somehow destroy the injustice in Syria with bombs, without a revolution in the ideology of the people, they would simply rebuild that same injustice, the way emotionally damaged people recreate their abuse in almost every relationship they get into.  There is no justification for bombing Syria that is just, there is no justification for going to War in Syria that is just. 

[STer]

Okay, I'm simply going to accept all of your logic.

 

Forceful intervention is going to cause many more deaths than letting evil Syrian murderers get away with murdering children. That was true for Iraq and Afghanistan so there's no reason to believe it won't hold true in Syria.

 

My intervention is talking with people about how we really need to stay the hell out of Syria.

 

How's that? Is that inconsistent?

If you believe forceful intervention of any kind in Syria will cause more deaths than allowing the use of chemical weapons, that's a perfectly legitimate reason to oppose the use of force. Am I correct that you don't always assume the intervention will cause more deaths than the original problem? There are cases where the use of force against one person or a small group will save many more lives? But you simply believe the situation in Syria now is not one of those cases?

 

If the reports are accurate (whether you believe they are or not is another issue) then 1400 were killed with chemical weapons. You are saying if we did anything forcefully, even if very targeted and strategic, it would lead to more than 1400 deaths? If that is your belief, then I can see why you'd want to stay out of there. I myself would doubt that a very targeted, strategic action would kill 1400. But if that is the reason for your view, I can understand that.

 

As for your second question, talking with people about our response to Syria is not in any way an intervention regarding what's going on in Syria itself. My question is, if the Syrian government did use chemical weapons on its own people, should there be any intervention there.

Listen, i am going to say something that is really simple, the ability to use force is not an obligation.  If the Syrian people ask us to come in and liberate them from their government there might be a case, but even then committing to war is something that should be avoided at all costs.  Instead it's the first and often times only solution offered, If i saw a child getting attacked i would intervene in what ever way i could that would lessen or avoid harm to the child.  But that's not the case here, children were harmed, but there is not a constant use of chemical weapons against children, what happened (who ever did it) was abominable, but instead of bombing or attacking, (since neither have any chance of reducing the likely hood of this sort of thing happening again, and both have a very high chance of harming more children, both directly and indirectly) We should be providing the best methods of securing the children possible, building shelters where the civilians not engaged in the conflict can weather the storm, or helping them to leave the country and seek a better life somewhere else, things of that nature.  Violence is never the answer, sometimes violence is used but only to confront violence, and even in those situations it is usually not successful in reducing the harm to those who are in danger.  There are so many possibilities of what could be done if this had anything to do with children being harmed. If you really believe the Government is going to Syria to save children, I think you need to check your reality.  We are going there to exploit them, and to impose our will upon them, same as with every other American Imperialistic venture.  And trying to hide that behind the shield of "helping children" is also abominable.  And every person, American or not, who stands up and says we cannot or should not allow ourselves to be stirred by the manipulations of the government into going to an unjust war for profit, is a hero. Those who cry for war, are generally mislead and tricked into believing good can come of it.  But those who work from logic and evidence know this simply isn't the case, no good will come of our involvement in Syria, we can't save those children already killed, and we can't protect the Syrian population from their own leaders, these are things we need to equip the population to do themselves.  Instead we come in, bomb and kill our way to "Victory" and wind up leaving the very people we were "trying to protect" worse off than they were before.  Even if we managed to somehow destroy the injustice in Syria with bombs, without a revolution in the ideology of the people, they would simply rebuild that same injustice, the way emotionally damaged people recreate their abuse in almost every relationship they get into.  There is no justification for bombing Syria that is just, there is no justification for going to War in Syria that is just. 

Thanks for a very thoughtful response.

 

I'm glad to see that your response gives serious consideration to the well-being of those in Syria, including the children.

 

I certainly agree there is no obligation to use force in all cases, especially if you don't think strategically it will help.

 

And I appreciate you offering other ways of intervening that might help.

 

I don't know if you're right though that violence is "never" the answer. Self-defense or forceful protection of others is, sadly, sometimes necessary.

 

Cases involving chemical or biological or nuclear weapons have an added layer of complexity since they involve precedents that are dangerous. Using these types of weapons raises strategic issues that are even more complicated than when they are not used. So that also must be taken into account in this case.

 

I understand your reasons for believing that taking action in Syria would be for ulterior motives. There are plenty of examples of why it's wise to consider that. I'm not sure that is really the case here though. I don't think anyone involved - even, perhaps especially, Obama - is happy about this situation and glad it offers a chance to go exploit Syria. I really believe all of them wish this situation was not happening and know that going into Syria will be unpopular.

 

I'm also not sure it's quite accurate to talk about this as if it is going to involve muddling ourselves in a war. I would be surprised if this went beyond a very limited strategic strike. You may say that's naive of me. But look at Libya. Do you see us muddled in a long-raging war in Libya? No. We took part in some very limited, strategic operations and that was that. As far as I know, we didn't end up engaged in Libya in a long war or in exploiting them for eternity. It really does seem - whatever your view of the consequences - to have been what we said - a limited, strategic intervention. We do sometimes do such things without remaining mired in a place forever. Since that is what happened in Iraq and Afghanistan, people tend to now think that always happens. But I don't think it does. And I think it is especially unlikely to happen in Syria precisely because the American people are even more fed up than usual with that after Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

So I think you're wise to be skeptical. I am too. But I also wouldn't go to the other extreme. There are sometimes limited strategic operations. And sometimes, even if you're a total cynic who thinks the government never does anything for humanitarian reasons, the humanitarian reasons just happen to overlap with whatever you think their motives are and there isn't anything much beyond that involved.

[PatrickC]

For a man that has often asked for evidence, I'm frankly surprised STer.. As for forceful intervention, that is a personal decision, given the evidence before ones eyes, having bore in mind all the possible consequences thereafter. This isn't a decision I would hand to a third party necessarily, particularly one that has consistently proved itself to be at odds with it's 'presupposed' ends..

 

I have enjoyed your contrarian perspective at times STer, but really.

[STer]

For a man that has often asked for evidence, I'm frankly surprised STer.. As for forceful intervention, that is a personal decision, given the evidence before ones eyes, having bore in mind all the possible consequences thereafter. This isn't a decision I would hand to a third party necessarily, particularly one that has consistently proved itself to be at odds with it's 'presupposed' ends..

 

I have enjoyed your contrarian perspective at times STer, but really.

I'm confused as to why you raise that I often ask for evidence, as if somehow I've contradicted that in this case. I've mentioned in almost every post in this thread the possibility that we are being lied to and said that if that is someone's reason for opposing intervention, they should say so. So far not one person has said "Yes my reason for opposing intervention is that I think we are being lied to and the chemical attacks did not happen." Some people, like Fiddler, have posted that quite clearly do believe it happened. I think it's very likely they did happen but I am consistent in that, if it was me making the actual decision, I'd certainly pore over that evidence carefully.

 

If your argument is that the attacks didn't happen, then say so. And then there can be a discussion of the evidence of whether they did or did not happen. I fully support that discussion. But that is a discussion of its own. Even if we found out such attacks didn't happen in this case, I'd still be interested in how people would react in a case where they did.

 

I agree that forceful intervention requires looking at the evidence and considering all possible consequences. Just remember that all consequences includes the consequences of not acting, both in the short and long-term, which can sometimes be quite significant, as well.

 

I'm not sure how this is a contrarian perspective. I see it as a very empirical, straightforward perspective. If we have evidence that someone used chemical weapons to kill children, at what point is forceful intervention justified? Is it really so contrarian to believe there are situations where it is justified?

[FiddlertheLeper]

 

If you believe forceful intervention of any kind in Syria will cause more deaths than allowing the use of chemical weapons, that's a perfectly legitimate reason to oppose the use of force. Am I correct that you don't always assume the intervention will cause more deaths than the original problem? There are cases where the use of force against one person or a small group will save many more lives? But you simply believe the situation in Syria now is not one of those cases?

 

If the reports are accurate (whether you believe they are or not is another issue) then 1400 were killed with chemical weapons. You are saying if we did anything forcefully, even if very targeted and strategic, it would lead to more than 1400 deaths? If that is your belief, then I can see why you'd want to stay out of there. I myself would doubt that a very targeted, strategic action would kill 1400. But if that is the reason for your view, I can understand that.

 

As for your second question, talking with people about our response to Syria is not in any way an intervention regarding what's going on in Syria itself. My question is, if the Syrian government did use chemical weapons on its own people, should there be any intervention there.

Thanks for a very thoughtful response.

 

I'm glad to see that your response gives serious consideration to the well-being of those in Syria, including the children.

 

I certainly agree there is no obligation to use force in all cases, especially if you don't think strategically it will help.

 

And I appreciate you offering other ways of intervening that might help.

 

I don't know if you're right though that violence is "never" the answer. Self-defense or forceful protection of others is, sadly, sometimes necessary.

 

Cases involving chemical or biological or nuclear weapons have an added layer of complexity since they involve precedents that are dangerous. Using these types of weapons raises strategic issues that are even more complicated than when they are not used. So that also must be taken into account in this case.

 

I understand your reasons for believing that taking action in Syria would be for ulterior motives. There are plenty of examples of why it's wise to consider that. I'm not sure that is really the case here though. I don't think anyone involved - even, perhaps especially, Obama - is happy about this situation and glad it offers a chance to go exploit Syria. I really believe all of them wish this situation was not happening and know that going into Syria will be unpopular.

 

I'm also not sure it's quite accurate to talk about this as if it is going to involve muddling ourselves in a war. I would be surprised if this went beyond a very limited strategic strike. You may say that's naive of me. But look at Libya. Do you see us muddled in a long-raging war in Libya? No. We took part in some very limited, strategic operations and that was that. As far as I know, we didn't end up engaged in Libya in a long war or in exploiting them for eternity. It really does seem - whatever your view of the consequences - to have been what we said - a limited, strategic intervention. We do sometimes do such things without remaining mired in a place forever. Since that is what happened in Iraq and Afghanistan, people tend to now think that always happens. But I don't think it does. And I think it is especially unlikely to happen in Syria precisely because the American people are even more fed up than usual with that after Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

So I think you're wise to be skeptical. I am too. But I also wouldn't go to the other extreme. There are sometimes limited strategic operations. And sometimes, even if you're a total cynic who thinks the government never does anything for humanitarian reasons, the humanitarian reasons just happen to overlap with whatever you think their motives are and there isn't anything much beyond that involved.

 

I would like to point out that Libya was and definitely is being exploited with regards to it's oil, Western companies have been the main component of getting the oil production back to near prewar levels, it is a fair example of American Imperialism, not quite as good as some of the South American countries in the 20th century, but it's important to remember that exploitation does not require long term military occupation.  Now i would also assume (meaning i have no information to confirm this prediction or deny it, so take it as nothing more than my opinion) that the new government in Libya will be friendlier to Western interest than the previous one.  

 

Now as to why i believe that getting involved in Syria and Iran will drag us in to a long term conflict is based on the public statements by both the Chinese and Russian Governments that if America becomes involved in Syria militarily they will step in on the side of Syria (Russia even claimed Thermonuclear war would be an option, though i doubt the sincerity of this statement, i do not however doubt that one or more of these countries will at the very least support and supply the current Regime with weapons and intelligence on American military movement.) This does not guarantee an actual war, but it makes it a much larger threat than in many previous U.S. interventions in various countries.  

 

Also i hope we both realize that a "limited strategic operation" would have only a relatively small chance of being able to resolve or improve the situation in Syria, meaning that either we will wind up having to commit to a more traditional campaign in the region to achieve our goals, or we will bomb the country and kill both Military targets, and civilians as well, for little to no gain other than to say we punished them for their use of chemical weapons.  Now if i believed this would actually prevent any future chemical weapon (or other WMD) use i would be much more willing to support the idea, but it's doubtful at best (in my opinion).

 

Now onto the claim that Obama doesn't want to be involved in Syria, if we are talking about him personally (as in his own private opinion) i could believe that, its a veritable hornets nest of public blow-back both foreign and domestic.  But his personal opinion is not what drives the country, Iran has been a key strategic objective for America for many years, this has been talked about by many Officials (retired mainly, though some current) and our actions in the area have continually supported this idea, Iran is a prize for any western country (part of the reason i believe Russia and China will intervene if they feel our actions threaten their ally) We also have a history of knocking off any government in the OPEC nations that attempts to get off of the U.S. dollar for oil sales, and Iran has been contemplating (at least) this very move, historical precedent says we won't allow this to happen, we will try to solve this diplomatically if possible (which with Iran is a tall order), if that fails we try Economic means (Sanctions actively aimed at crippling the economy are already in place) if these fail to work we will try more direct means (most likely covert at first, if those fail out right military intervention will be the final option) the fact that we are pushing so heavily to become involved in Syria leads me to believe that all of the other options have been expended (and failed) and we are now moving into our endgame strategy.  I sincerely hope i am wrong on this issue, but i have yet to find much of anything that points to that, 

[STer]

I would like to point out that Libya was and definitely is being exploited with regards to it's oil, Western companies have been the main component of getting the oil production back to near prewar levels, it is a fair example of American Imperialism, not quite as good as some of the South American countries in the 20th century, but it's important to remember that exploitation does not require long term military occupation.  Now i would also assume (meaning i have no information to confirm this prediction or deny it, so take it as nothing more than my opinion) that the new government in Libya will be friendlier to Western interest than the previous one.  

 

Now as to why i believe that getting involved in Syria and Iran will drag us in to a long term conflict is based on the public statements by both the Chinese and Russian Governments that if America becomes involved in Syria militarily they will step in on the side of Syria (Russia even claimed Thermonuclear war would be an option, though i doubt the sincerity of this statement, i do not however doubt that one or more of these countries will at the very least support and supply the current Regime with weapons and intelligence on American military movement.) This does not guarantee an actual war, but it makes it a much larger threat than in many previous U.S. interventions in various countries.  

 

Also i hope we both realize that a "limited strategic operation" would have only a relatively small chance of being able to resolve or improve the situation in Syria, meaning that either we will wind up having to commit to a more traditional campaign in the region to achieve our goals, or we will bomb the country and kill both Military targets, and civilians as well, for little to no gain other than to say we punished them for their use of chemical weapons.  Now if i believed this would actually prevent any future chemical weapon (or other WMD) use i would be much more willing to support the idea, but it's doubtful at best (in my opinion).

 

Now onto the claim that Obama doesn't want to be involved in Syria, if we are talking about him personally (as in his own private opinion) i could believe that, its a veritable hornets nest of public blow-back both foreign and domestic.  But his personal opinion is not what drives the country, Iran has been a key strategic objective for America for many years, this has been talked about by many Officials (retired mainly, though some current) and our actions in the area have continually supported this idea, Iran is a prize for any western country (part of the reason i believe Russia and China will intervene if they feel our actions threaten their ally) We also have a history of knocking off any government in the OPEC nations that attempts to get off of the U.S. dollar for oil sales, and Iran has been contemplating (at least) this very move, historical precedent says we won't allow this to happen, we will try to solve this diplomatically if possible (which with Iran is a tall order), if that fails we try Economic means (Sanctions actively aimed at crippling the economy are already in place) if these fail to work we will try more direct means (most likely covert at first, if those fail out right military intervention will be the final option) the fact that we are pushing so heavily to become involved in Syria leads me to believe that all of the other options have been expended (and failed) and we are now moving into our endgame strategy.  I sincerely hope i am wrong on this issue, but i have yet to find much of anything that points to that, 

Just because the new leadership in Libya may happen to be more friendly to us in terms of oil doesn't mean that was the reason for the involvement. But it's possible that you're right and our involvement there was a ploy over oil. I'm not well-versed enough to know for sure. But my impression was that Libya really was a relatively limited intervention, not a long-term quagmire for the US.

 

If Russia and/or China help the Syrian government that may change the strategic calculation. And if you say we shouldn't get involved because of their threats - we should allow them to intimidate us from getting involved - that is one viewpoint. But it doesn't really shed any light on the ethics of the situation which I am more interested in. It could be that morally we are justified in intervening, but that China and Russia, by threatening to oppose us and support Assad - perhaps itself an immoral act - make it no longer a beneficial calculation.

 

If your argument is that limited intervention won't help reduce either current or future use of WMD, that is a very legitimate reason to oppose intervention - a strategic one.

 

What I find interesting is that nobody in this thread but me seems to think there is even a possible ethical justification for intervening.

 

I didn't say it's just Obama that ideally wouldn't want to be involved in Syria. I don't think very many people want to be involved and I think almost all would prefer this entire situation wasn't happening. Some like McCain are very eager to intervene, but I think even McCain wishes this would all just stop and not even be an issue. I don't think they are glad it's happening as some opportunity to exploit. What for?

 

What is the significance of your description regarding Iran? Are you saying we want to get involved in Syria in order to launch attacks on Iran from Syria? How do you see the two things connected?

 

Thank you again for another very thoughtful post.

[jpahmad]

Ster, I think you are taking two issues and meshing them together.  Which is why everyone is arguing.  These are the two topics I see in this thread:

 

• Is it a moral imperative to intervene when someone else is being violated?
• Will we be solving the problem in Syria by lobbing in a few missiles to hit "strategic targets?"

 

Regarding the first question,  I think everyone on this forum would personal decided to intervene in order to prevent child abuse, murder, and theft - as long as it is clear who the aggressor is and that there is at least a chance of surviving the altercation.  But as for the ethical implications of this sort of situation, well, that really is a topic all on its own that doesn't have much to do with Syria. 

 

You made an assumption that "people on this board" were not "concerned" with children dying in Syria.  Why would you assume that?  it just seems out of the blue. 

 

The general consensus here, and throughout the country (according to the polls) is that bombing Syria will not solve the problem - will not prevent more children from dying, will not get rid of the current regime, and will not rid that part of the world of chemical weapons.  In fact, it seems utterly pointless.  I mean, haven't the Obama supporters already stated that this is a "face-saving" campaign? 

 

You're talking about ethics, but everyone else is talking about strategy. 

[STer]

Ster, I think you are taking two issues and meshing them together.  Which is why everyone is arguing.  These are the two topics I see in this thread:

 

• Is it a moral imperative to intervene when someone else is being violated?
• Will we be solving the problem in Syria by lobbing in a few missiles to hit "strategic targets?"

 

Regarding the first question,  I think everyone on this forum would personal decided to intervene in order to prevent child abuse, murder, and theft - as long as it is clear who the aggressor is and that there is at least a chance of surviving the altercation.  But as for the ethical implications of this sort of situation, well, that really is a topic all on its own that doesn't have much to do with Syria. 

 

You made an assumption that "people on this board" were not "concerned" with children dying in Syria.  Why would you assume that?  it just seems out of the blue. 

 

The general consensus here, and throughout the country (according to the polls) is that bombing Syria will not solve the problem - will not prevent more children from dying, will not get rid of the current regime, and will not rid that part of the world of chemical weapons.  In fact, it seems utterly pointless.  I mean, haven't the Obama supporters already stated that this is a "face-saving" campaign? 

 

You're talking about ethics, but everyone else is talking about strategy. 

I feel it's the opposite. I'm trying to keep the two separate and focus on the morals and some others are meshing them together. I'm fine hearing about both though. But what really interests me is the moral part since I was surprised that in a place so concerned about the welfare of children, there seemed to be a knee-jerk reaction so strong that nobody even considered whether intervention might be justified ethically (even if perhaps strategically we couldn't figure out a way to make it work well.)

 

Also I think you haven't stated number 1 quite how I mean it.

 

I'm not asking "Is it a moral imperative to intervene when someone else is being violated?" which is an all-or-nothing way of saying it.

 

I'm asking "When is it justified and/or morally imperative to intervene using force when someone else is being violated?" It sounds like some in this thread don't feel it's ever justified when it's on the society-scale level, only when it's between individuals or very small groups. But, if that's so, then I don't know how they expect to respond when larger groups or regimes are using force and won't stop.

 

#2 I think you've stated accurately and is something that I think some people are answering in an attempt to answer the first question, but of course it can't do so. You can easily believe it's justified to intervene, but that strategically, in this case, it just won't work for whatever reason. As you say, they are different questions.

 

I didn't assume people on this board were not concerned with children dying in Syria. I pointed out that the well-being of these children was conspicuously not mentioned in this thread as a point of concern. And I referenced darkskyabove's language in his first post in the thread about this basically not being a challenge he faces since it's thousands of miles away, which I interpreted as him saying "if people are killing each other far away, then it's not my business due to the distance."

 

If everyone else is talking about strategy, then I'm curious the view on the morality. Because what I interpreted - rightly or wrongly - from the start of the thread - was not about strategy but about making moral judgments about Obama based on his desire to intervene, implying that intervening in Syria would be evidence of immorality.

[FiddlertheLeper]

 

Just because the new leadership in Libya may happen to be more friendly to us in terms of oil doesn't mean that was the reason for the involvement. But it's possible that you're right and our involvement there was a ploy over oil. I'm not well-versed enough to know for sure. But my impression was that Libya really was a relatively limited intervention, not a long-term quagmire for the US.

 

If Russia and/or China help the Syrian government that may change the strategic calculation. And if you say we shouldn't get involved because of their threats - we should allow them to intimidate us from getting involved - that is one viewpoint. But it doesn't really shed any light on the ethics of the situation which I am more interested in. It could be that morally we are justified in intervening, but that China and Russia, by threatening to oppose us and support Assad - perhaps itself an immoral act - make it no longer a beneficial calculation.

 

If your argument is that limited intervention won't help reduce either current or future use of WMD, that is a very legitimate reason to oppose intervention - a strategic one.

 

What I find interesting is that nobody in this thread but me seems to think there is even a possible ethical justification for intervening.

 

I didn't say it's just Obama that ideally wouldn't want to be involved in Syria. I don't think very many people want to be involved and I think almost all would prefer this entire situation wasn't happening. Some like McCain are very eager to intervene, but I think even McCain wishes this would all just stop and not even be an issue. I don't think they are glad it's happening as some opportunity to exploit. What for?

 

What is the significance of your description regarding Iran? Are you saying we want to get involved in Syria in order to launch attacks on Iran from Syria? How do you see the two things connected?

 

Thank you again for another very thoughtful post.

 

I don't mean this as insulting, but you need to do some research, Iran is Syria's mutual defense partner, any war that Syria is involved, Iran is obligated to join on behalf of Syria, this is the number one reason we are target Syria. It goes back to the U.S. history of trying to get a Pro American Iranian goverment in place (all the way back to the Iran Contra of 1953,) we have been trying to bet the kind of Vassal state in Iran that we created in many South American states in the 20th century for many years.As to the ethics, i thought my view was a little clearer, unless the population asks for intervention (and it needs to be some kind of if not majority, then a large proportion) then i think getting involved in another countries affairs is eithically unjustifiable (from a military stand point, other types of intervention i am less against, though i still would not want it to be the U.S. getting involved, the number of countries we have helped without exploiting is so small it's really only the ones that either had nothing for us to exploit, or that were powerful enough to actually threaten us) Now this doesn't mean that no crime is a great enough one for some sort of Unilateral effort, but even those the U.S. is powerful enough diplomatically and economically to find a way to turn to our advantage.  I equate war to save oppressed people, as some one deciding to kill a mother and father who are abusing their children in order to save the children.  Now punishment of the parents is justified in some sense, but it has to actually improve the life of the children for it to be something that should be considered, (not meant as an argument against CPS or other current intervention programs for abused children, they may be horrible, but most of the time they are at least a small step up from the situations they get children out of, though definitely not always)  

 

As for the Russia China part, i do think this HAS to be factored into our thinking, because its a huge part of the reason we are there, Iran has been attempting to negotiate a switch from the U.S. dollar for its oil sales to a deal with China/Russia (either to start selling in one of their currencies or to trade for physical goods, which would literally be September 11th for the U.S. dollar, it would be an economic disaster for us) also because both countries remain the ones that are not our allies, that have the ability to at least challenge us militarily.  Now i do agree the idea of allowing threats to back us down is unpalatable, but we have to consider what is the best course for all involved and i don't believe risking another world war would fit that description, also it's important to understand that even though Syria is a Sovereign nation, that because of the way Russia and China view nations like Syria (in a similar way to U.S. they are close allies, which really means more of a vassal state) so to them it's almost like we are attacking Russia/China instead of Syria.  

 

to the Libya point, no we didn't get locked down in a quagmire there, but we did leave behind powerful Western corporations to exploit the natural resources we desire from the country, which while great for us, is pretty crappy for them, so ethically even though we helped some people there (and not trying to downgrade the part we played) but we will be having them pay for that help (whether they like it or not) for years to come, which ethically is not right.  as i said before exploitation does not require long term military occupation.As for the Government desire to be in this conflict, of course they want to, we wouldn't be there with this focus otherwise, many countries over the years have used chemical weapons while the U.S. turned a blind eye (often until some later point when U.S. foreign interest coincided with that region)  But Russia may have out smarted us here with their latest proposal.  The Syrian rebels have been backed by us, and i am sure made promises to that we would get involved and help them win if necessary, and with Russia's latest proposal they have detected rightfully our situation.  They proposed that Syrian government give up all chemical weapons (which Syria happily claims to agree to, whether they will or not we will see) if they do, since the President has made that the central tenet of his believe of a need for an intervention, he will have no choice but to back off getting involved in the region.  This would be great, except it will seriously hurt U.S. credibility with future insurgencies (a tactic we rely heavily on to get what we want) it would also mean we have to rework out strategy for getting involved in Iran, so it won't end U.S. involvement in the region, just post pone it.  

 

U.S. middle east involvement is a hugely complicated subject, with decades of history, and more problems than a 70 year old HIV positive smoker working in a disease treatment facility. trying to understand anything we do in that region requires looking past what the government says to us, and asking that age old question, who benefits? you'll find in most countries we get involved in, shortly afterwards the number of U.S. companies involved in that country grows, and U.S. gains (money, resources, political favors etc) also grow in the time following our involvement.  War is no long about conquering territory, its about exploiting the resources and gaining influence through puppet governments, we use Economic warfare more than weapons, insurgencies more than armies, and Proxy wars more than direct announced wars.  This makes it almost impossible for anyone not willing to spend hours upon hours digging through the muck to find the gold from being able to decipher what it is we really are doing (or why) over there. But when you begin to know what to look for, it becomes easier, and eventually you can start to see the patterns emerge. 

[jpahmad]

 

 

I'm asking "When is it justified and/or morally imperative to intervene using force when someone else is being violated?" It sounds like some in this thread don't feel it's ever justified when it's on the society-scale level, only when it's between individuals or very small groups. But, if that's so, then I don't know how they expect to respond when larger groups or regimes are using force and won't stop.

 

 

 

 

I think the question of "moral imperative" really needs to be addressed in a laboratory situation before we can apply it to world politics.  For example, if I'm walking down the street and I see someone being stabbed to death.  What would be the virtuous action at this point?  Am I obligated to do anything?  Or maybe, I'm not obligated ethically to do anything, but I would be considered and spineless loser if I didn't do anything.  I don't know the answer to these questions.  You seem to have an opinion on this.  Would it be appropriate to ask for it here, or is that a topic for another thread?

[STer]

I don't mean this as insulting, but you need to do some research, Iran is Syria's mutual defense partner, any war that Syria is involved, Iran is obligated to join on behalf of Syria, this is the number one reason we are target Syria. It goes back to the U.S. history of trying to get a Pro American Iranian goverment in place (all the way back to the Iran Contra of 1953,) we have been trying to bet the kind of Vassal state in Iran that we created in many South American states in the 20th century for many years.As to the ethics, i thought my view was a little clearer, unless the population asks for intervention (and it needs to be some kind of if not majority, then a large proportion) then i think getting involved in another countries affairs is eithically unjustifiable (from a military stand point, other types of intervention i am less against, though i still would not want it to be the U.S. getting involved, the number of countries we have helped without exploiting is so small it's really only the ones that either had nothing for us to exploit, or that were powerful enough to actually threaten us) Now this doesn't mean that no crime is a great enough one for some sort of Unilateral effort, but even those the U.S. is powerful enough diplomatically and economically to find a way to turn to our advantage.  I equate war to save oppressed people, as some one deciding to kill a mother and father who are abusing their children in order to save the children.  Now punishment of the parents is justified in some sense, but it has to actually improve the life of the children for it to be something that should be considered, (not meant as an argument against CPS or other current intervention programs for abused children, they may be horrible, but most of the time they are at least a small step up from the situations they get children out of, though definitely not always)  

 

As for the Russia China part, i do think this HAS to be factored into our thinking, because its a huge part of the reason we are there, Iran has been attempting to negotiate a switch from the U.S. dollar for its oil sales to a deal with China/Russia (either to start selling in one of their currencies or to trade for physical goods, which would literally be September 11th for the U.S. dollar, it would be an economic disaster for us) also because both countries remain the ones that are not our allies, that have the ability to at least challenge us militarily.  Now i do agree the idea of allowing threats to back us down is unpalatable, but we have to consider what is the best course for all involved and i don't believe risking another world war would fit that description, also it's important to understand that even though Syria is a Sovereign nation, that because of the way Russia and China view nations like Syria (in a similar way to U.S. they are close allies, which really means more of a vassal state) so to them it's almost like we are attacking Russia/China instead of Syria.  

 

to the Libya point, no we didn't get locked down in a quagmire there, but we did leave behind powerful Western corporations to exploit the natural resources we desire from the country, which while great for us, is pretty crappy for them, so ethically even though we helped some people there (and not trying to downgrade the part we played) but we will be having them pay for that help (whether they like it or not) for years to come, which ethically is not right.  as i said before exploitation does not require long term military occupation.As for the Government desire to be in this conflict, of course they want to, we wouldn't be there with this focus otherwise, many countries over the years have used chemical weapons while the U.S. turned a blind eye (often until some later point when U.S. foreign interest coincided with that region)  But Russia may have out smarted us here with their latest proposal.  The Syrian rebels have been backed by us, and i am sure made promises to that we would get involved and help them win if necessary, and with Russia's latest proposal they have detected rightfully our situation.  They proposed that Syrian government give up all chemical weapons (which Syria happily claims to agree to, whether they will or not we will see) if they do, since the President has made that the central tenet of his believe of a need for an intervention, he will have no choice but to back off getting involved in the region.  This would be great, except it will seriously hurt U.S. credibility with future insurgencies (a tactic we rely heavily on to get what we want) it would also mean we have to rework out strategy for getting involved in Iran, so it won't end U.S. involvement in the region, just post pone it.  

 

U.S. middle east involvement is a hugely complicated subject, with decades of history, and more problems than a 70 year old HIV positive smoker working in a disease treatment facility. trying to understand anything we do in that region requires looking past what the government says to us, and asking that age old question, who benefits? you'll find in most countries we get involved in, shortly afterwards the number of U.S. companies involved in that country grows, and U.S. gains (money, resources, political favors etc) also grow in the time following our involvement.  War is no long about conquering territory, its about exploiting the resources and gaining influence through puppet governments, we use Economic warfare more than weapons, insurgencies more than armies, and Proxy wars more than direct announced wars.  This makes it almost impossible for anyone not willing to spend hours upon hours digging through the muck to find the gold from being able to decipher what it is we really are doing (or why) over there. But when you begin to know what to look for, it becomes easier, and eventually you can start to see the patterns emerge. 

So you're saying the US is trying to get involved in Syria to lure Iran in so we can then attack Iran claiming it's in defense?

 

I understand your ethical view and it sounds pretty reasonable. I was never claiming there couldn't be an ethical case against going in. I just didn't hear anyone really giving one and it seemed to be just a knee-jerk anti-Obama type thing without consideration of the other side - the situation within Syria. You have clearly thought this through very deeply.

 

Of course the analogy isn't killing the mother and father to save abused children. It's where the parents are killing their children, not just abusing them, and you are trying to strategically remove things that help them do that. You don't even necessarily try to kill the parents. But that is a possible outcome in the course of trying to stop their own killings.

 

I agree completely that all the strategic aspects, like those involving Russia and China, must inform any actual decision. But even if we decided not to go in due to those reasons, it doesn't mean it was immoral to want to do so.

 

You've definitely studied this a lot more than me. Thanks for the very interesting information.

I think the question of "moral imperative" really needs to be addressed in a laboratory situation before we can apply it to world politics.  For example, if I'm walking down the street and I see someone being stabbed to death.  What would be the virtuous action at this point?  Am I obligated to do anything?  Or maybe, I'm not obligated ethically to do anything, but I would be considered and spineless loser if I didn't do anything.  I don't know the answer to these questions.  You seem to have an opinion on this.  Would it be appropriate to ask for it here, or is that a topic for another thread?

Well keep in mind you have to add an important element to the equation. The proper analogy is you see someone spraying poison gas on the person. This raises many more risks than even a stabbing. Now imagine you also know that the perpetrator has further stockpiles of poison gas.

 

The situation in Syria would not be as complex as it is if not for the use of one of the especially dangerous types of weapons like chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear weapons. Of course, killing in any form is tragic and raises ethical concerns. But, the use of these types of weapons raises a whole additional layer of ethical questions.

[jpahmad]

At this point, I'm not trying to make this scenario analogous to Syria.  First things first - I just want to know how you regard the possible choices presented above in my over-simplified hypothetical situation.  I don't want to connect anything to current events right now. 

 

The question still stands.  Is it ethically incumbent on one individual to intervene when another individual is being harmed? If so, to what extent?  Should the individual who is helping be required to sacrifice themselves?  Or, should they only intervene when the chances of survival are in the "helper's" favor?

 

Even more.  Should the helper just be satisfied to call 911, or are they ethically required to charge down the man with the knife?  What about all the steps in between?

[STer]

At this point, I'm not trying to make this scenario analogous to Syria.  First things first - I just want to know how you regard the possible choices presented above in my over-simplified hypothetical situation.  I don't want to connect anything to current events right now.  The question still stands.  Is it ethically incumbent on one individual to intervene when another individual is being harmed? If so, to what extent?  Should the individual who is helping be required to sacrifice themselves?  Or, should they only intervene when the chances of survival are in the "helper's" favor? Even more.  Should the helper just be satisfied to call 911, or are they ethically required to charge down the man with the knife?  What about all the steps in between?

This is interesting because you're re-stating the same basic questions I've been asking in the thread. Did you get the impression that I was trying to provide answers? I was posing the questions just as you are. I even posted myself earlier in the thread 

I'm asking "When is it justified and/or morally imperative to intervene using force when someone else is being violated?"

I wouldn't pretend to have any simple answers. These are very complex ethical decisions. And that was precisely my point. When I first came in this thread, I saw people appearing to me to oversimplify the issue and only focus on one aspect of it in regards to Syria. What seemed to me one of the most difficult ethical decisions humans face was being talked about like a no-brainer for non-intervention without even a mention of the well-being of the children in Syria. I just wanted to understand why others weren't seeing the complexities of the situation that I was seeing, especially in a place so concerned with the welfare of children.

 

As far as making progress on answering those questions, I'd love to see a discussion of that. I don't have any clear ready-made answer. I think it really depends on the circumstances of particular situations. I doubt it's even possible to intervene in every case, even if you wanted to. So you have to pick your battles.

[Kevin Beal]

I wouldn't pretend to have any simple answers. These are very complex ethical decisions. And that was precisely my point. When I first came in this thread, I saw people appearing to me to oversimplify the issue and only focus on one aspect of it in regards to Syria. 

 

You appear to me to be oversimplifying the supposed oversimplification. Oversimplified as compared to what?

 

Personally, I don't know of any way that I can help those children in Syria, and that was immediately apparent the moment I heard about it, like I probably can't help the children in any other potential or real war zone. I don't know of any way to help, that is, except not make the problem worse by supporting another evil war, and talking about ethics and anarchism with people in my life.

 

It's really not as complicated as you have made it. Not really.

[STer]

You appear to me to be oversimplifying the supposed oversimplification. Oversimplified as compared to what?

 

Personally, I don't know of any way that I can help those children in Syria, and that was immediately apparent the moment I heard about it, like I probably can't help the children in any other potential or real war zone. I don't know of any way to help, that is, except not make the problem worse by supporting another evil war, and talking about ethics and anarchism with people in my life.

 

It's really not as complicated as you have made it. Not really.

Oversimplified compared to the actual moral complexities of the situation.

 

The question isn't if you personally, acting alone, can help those children. The question in this case, with Syria, is whether groups of people and institutions in which we have an interest can help them and whether we should support them in doing so.

 

The United States helped enormous amounts of children when they intervened in World War II. I have met many of them personally who wouldn't have even survived otherwise. Now some might also point out that the US caused harm in intervening too. But that is exactly my point. These things are complex with factors on all sides. If you don't think they are, then I believe you are ignoring many important parts of the calculation.