Syria's Assad used chemical weapons on his own people

[soundwave]

time to buy shares in BAE I suppose

[awepittance]

is there anyone here who thinks that the united states is NOT looking for an excuse to in some fashion take control of the Syrian government?

because let's assume Assad really did do exactly what the US claims he did, does that actually mean the US is using legitimate and truthful reasons for wanting to use military force? I'm still very confused why most of the discussions even in liberal circles start with the premise that the US has altruistic intentions and has reasons that should be by default taken at face value

[awepittance]

goDel, on 28 Aug 2013 - 09:43 AM, said:

 

 

As far as I'm concerned, I think it's pretty tiresome to have the same discussion over and over about some kind of historical empire and how everything is wrong, without providing an actual solution for the imminent problems which are taking place at this point in time. Do you propose a complete retreat from US in international issues?

and what imminent problem are we facing exactly? The main one I can see is that the US is continuing with their plan to destabilize the middle east unabated, and people like yourself still seem to have faith that they are actually even remotely interested in humanitarian uses of military force. I'm not saying 'everything is wrong', I'm saying that there is no reason, besides blind faith to believe that the US has altruistic intentions in any of this. I'm not proposing the US leave international issues, I'm proposing that the policy coop that Wesley Clarke described should be evacuated and reverted. This is not simply entering the international stage, it's using the UN and international stage as a ploy to continue to take over the middle east. If you get a chance go check out a Hans Blix interview from after the 2003 Iraq Invasion, because he effectively says the same thing. The only reason he believes the US went to the UN for Iraq was to 'legitimize' a predestined pre-planned aggressive military occupation whether they found weapons or not. Do you really think Syria is much different in that regard?

 

I don't even want to perpetuate what I perceive as a false and manufactured framing of the debate, the debate that seems to center around 'well what SHOULD we do then?'

I find that sort of discussion is actually contributing to the problem. The very fact that anybody feels that sense of entitlement and moral superiority over another country, is pretty disturbing to me personally. and is merely a sickness of citizens living under such an empire.

[awepittance]

 

I'm honestly a little stunned that any critically thinking person at this moment is taking US claims about Syria seriously enough to be backing a military strike.

Propaganda works very effective obviously.

 

yes it does, and it never ceases to amaze me how many seemingly intelligent critically minded people go along with it or get wrapped into the minutia of the pre-framed debate. These are the moments when I remember with a fierce intensity why being an American can make one feel ashamed

[awepittance]

Can someone also explain to me from a moral perspective on how a certain type of weapon (a chemical one) VS a traditional one killing the same amount of innocent civilians in their homes is 'worse'? I know and understand that the Geneva conventions and UN have put restrictions on certain types of weapons and have remedies for dealing with people who use them, but it's not the UN who is going out there crying about the horrendous morals Assad has for using chemical weapons, it's the united states. Now obviously i'm not saying that chemical weapons aren't horrible, but generally speaking a traditional cluster bomb or missile attack is a far more effective weapon and is capable of taking far more lives. The reason chemical weapons aren't used in battle isn't because they are sadistic or awful, it's because they are ineffective and inefficient and depend heavily on environmental conditions at any given time.


edit: just picked up some interesting points from the KErry speech that i missed the first time around, the speech is basically setting us up for a potential defiance of the UN. He mentions several times just how crafty the Syrian regime is in hiding their chemical weapons program (deja vu of Colin Powell's mobile biological weapons program speech to the UN). It's almost hard for me to believe, even after how awful I feel about the current administration that they might at some point actually defy UN authorization simply because the UN is giving Syria too much time to clean up their act.

[goDel]

 

goDel, on 28 Aug 2013 - 09:43 AM, said:

 

 

As far as I'm concerned, I think it's pretty tiresome to have the same discussion over and over about some kind of historical empire and how everything is wrong, without providing an actual solution for the imminent problems which are taking place at this point in time. Do you propose a complete retreat from US in international issues?

and what imminent problem are we facing exactly?

 

The situation in Syria. You know, people fighting and dying and stuff. Not everything revolves around US intentions.

 

Lets assume for a bit that some bad stuff is happening in Syria and something should be done about it. Lets be silly for a sec. How about some country, perhaps the US or another country does something to "resolve" that situation. Don't you think that the intentions of this intervention don't really matter as long as the situation is actually resolved? You can define "resolve" any way you like. The point is those intentions aren't really relevant as long as the outcome is "right".

 

As far as I'm concerned, those intentions or things of speculation, btw. And you can speculate all you want. And even if you're right, point is, if it helps the situation in Syria (in the short and long term) it doesn't really matter.

 

Stupid example, but is it immoral for a paedophile to save a child from a fire?

[brian trageskin]

 

 

goDel, on 28 Aug 2013 - 09:43 AM, said:

 

 

As far as I'm concerned, I think it's pretty tiresome to have the same discussion over and over about some kind of historical empire and how everything is wrong, without providing an actual solution for the imminent problems which are taking place at this point in time. Do you propose a complete retreat from US in international issues?

and what imminent problem are we facing exactly?

 

The situation in Syria. You know, people fighting and dying and stuff. Not everything revolves around US intentions.

 

Lets assume for a bit that some bad stuff is happening in Syria and something should be done about it. Lets be silly for a sec. How about some country, perhaps the US or another country does something to "resolve" that situation. Don't you think that the intentions of this intervention don't really matter as long as the situation is actually resolved? You can define "resolve" any way you like. The point is those intentions aren't really relevant as long as the outcome is "right".

 

As far as I'm concerned, those intentions or things of speculation, btw. And you can speculate all you want. And even if you're right, point is, if it helps the situation in Syria (in the short and long term) it doesn't really matter.

 

Stupid example, but is it immoral for a paedophile to save a child from a fire?

 

 

except that the current situation is likely more that of a pyromaniac fireman.

[Lane Visitor]

 

 

goDel, on 28 Aug 2013 - 09:43 AM, said:

 

 

As far as I'm concerned, I think it's pretty tiresome to have the same discussion over and over about some kind of historical empire and how everything is wrong, without providing an actual solution for the imminent problems which are taking place at this point in time. Do you propose a complete retreat from US in international issues?

and what imminent problem are we facing exactly?

 

The situation in Syria. You know, people fighting and dying and stuff. Not everything revolves around US intentions.

 

Lets assume for a bit that some bad stuff is happening in Syria and something should be done about it. Lets be silly for a sec. How about some country, perhaps the US or another country does something to "resolve" that situation. Don't you think that the intentions of this intervention don't really matter as long as the situation is actually resolved? You can define "resolve" any way you like. The point is those intentions aren't really relevant as long as the outcome is "right".

 

As far as I'm concerned, those intentions or things of speculation, btw. And you can speculate all you want. And even if you're right, point is, if it helps the situation in Syria (in the short and long term) it doesn't really matter.

 

Stupid example, but is it immoral for a paedophile to save a child from a fire?

 

 

^ Spot on.

 

I'm personally split on what kind of intervention method is best for this particular situation, but I've always taken the viewpoint that if we see an atrocity, to stand by and do nothing is wrong. Of course, nothing's black and white, and that's the problem I have with the isolationist mindset-- it holds idealism above practicality when it comes to foreign policy. For one, it's more practical to help ourselves first, then allies, then neutral parties, etc... For geopolitical/good neighborly reasons, we do have priorities when it comes to helping who. There will always be mistrust of the government-- Of course, we cannot read the minds of politicians, lobbyists and presidents, as far as additional motives for liberating a country or ousting its leader, but I find it hard to believe that there's this undying treasure chest of ulterior motives that pop out of the woodwork... some kind organized plot where politicians conspiritorially gather and go "heeeeeyyyy, looks like it's time to kill two birds with one stone guysssss" every single time we talk about getting involved in the ME, or any region for that matter. Like really, that's so cartoonish to me. So simplified. There's a grain of truth to many conspiracies, maybe, but really, at the end of the day, I think most of the stuff that goes on between countries is mostly what it looks like- and I'm stressing mostly here. Sure, it may be fun to complicate things and look for plots, but seriously, do governments have that kind of time and energy to manipulate/cover up/construct such things, and for what? A few bonus paychecks? Sure, there's corruption and cover up when we intervene, but not every time. Just doesnt seem realistic to me.

 

But back to the topic at hand, I think GoDel has a good point (and illustrates a great example) in that this is kind of situation where the outcome and assumed intent trumps any hypothetical ulterior motives/intent.

[SR4]

thats a bit of a straw man. this is the type of thinking that allows exponentially worse suffering to replace the original suffering.

[goDel]

Perhaps a strawman, but what do you propose? Do you have a better idea besides something which involves time machines?

[SR4]

i propose not immediately supporting an invasion until there is a supplemental platform for reconstruction in tow. i fail to see how that would be unreasonable.

[Dale]

Britain will not be intervening militarily after a vote by MPs tonight:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/2013/aug/29/mps-debate-syria-live-blog

[may be rude]

Can someone also explain to me from a moral perspective on how a certain type of weapon (a chemical one) VS a traditional one killing the same amount of innocent civilians in their homes is 'worse'? I know and understand that the Geneva conventions and UN have put restrictions on certain types of weapons and have remedies for dealing with people who use them, but it's not the UN who is going out there crying about the horrendous morals Assad has for using chemical weapons, it's the united states. Now obviously i'm not saying that chemical weapons aren't horrible, but generally speaking a traditional cluster bomb or missile attack is a far more effective weapon and is capable of taking far more lives. The reason chemical weapons aren't used in battle isn't because they are sadistic or awful, it's because they are ineffective and inefficient and depend heavily on environmental conditions at any given time.

 

 

edit: just picked up some interesting points from the KErry speech that i missed the first time around, the speech is basically setting us up for a potential defiance of the UN. He mentions several times just how crafty the Syrian regime is in hiding their chemical weapons program (deja vu of Colin Powell's mobile biological weapons program speech to the UN). It's almost hard for me to believe, even after how awful I feel about the current administration that they might at some point actually defy UN authorization simply because the UN is giving Syria too much time to clean up their act.

 

chemical weapons are less easy to control and kill more easily than traditional weapons.

 

also, it's known syria has huge stockpiles of chemical weapons, it's not disputed by anyone.

 

and assad isn't going to clean up his act. he's been brutally demolishing his own country and people for years, now.

[Lane Visitor]

Very helpful insight into Syria regarding why chemical weapons are more serious and actual intent of intervention:

 

Specifically Questions 7, 8 and the one after...

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/08/29/9-questions-about-syria-you-were-too-embarrassed-to-ask/

[Guest ncbladesjr]

I didn't think he really had the balls to be another Saddam Hussein, but it's time to take him out, hopefully with the support of the UN Security Council.

 

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/06/13/191395435/report-u-s-europe-conclude-syria-used-chemical-weapons

I think we should not get too involved with this. I know this is pretty bad, but do we know what we're getting ourselves into?

[SR4]

Very helpful insight into Syria regarding why chemical weapons are more serious and actual intent of intervention:

 

Specifically Questions 7, 8 and the one after...

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/08/29/9-questions-about-syria-you-were-too-embarrassed-to-ask/

 

 

Forgive me for being cynical, but this article seems to point out the ulterior motives. Send cruise missiles to punish Syria for chemical warfare? Where was the retaliation against Iraq in the 1980's for using chemical weapons against its own people? Wouldn't we have been even more justified in retaliating then, as many of the weaponized precursors were sold by American companies? Or is that example different because it's "not now"? Are mustard gas and sarin exceptions from the Chemical Ban Treaties? I'm curious.

 

Chemical warfare seems to be tolerated except for when it's not. Ok, good to know.

[Lane Visitor]

 

Very helpful insight into Syria regarding why chemical weapons are more serious and actual intent of intervention:

 

Specifically Questions 7, 8 and the one after...

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/08/29/9-questions-about-syria-you-were-too-embarrassed-to-ask/

 

 

Forgive me for being cynical, but this article seems to point out the ulterior motives. Send cruise missiles to punish Syria for chemical warfare? Where was the retaliation against Iraq in the 1980's for using chemical weapons against its own people? Wouldn't we have been even more justified in retaliating then, as many of the weaponized precursors were sold by American companies? Or is that example different because it's "not now"? Are mustard gas and sarin exceptions from the Chemical Ban Treaties? I'm curious.

 

Chemical warfare seems to be tolerated except for when it's not. Ok, good to know.

 

 

You make a good point.. and I should have amended my post to express that ulterior motives could also be good motives.. such as what this article is outlining. But I don't know that the motive is even really so much ulterior... I don't actually think that Obama, though, has been avoiding making that motive clear- he's stated that Assad needs to be condemned regarding chemical weapons:

 

"He believes that there are core interests at stake for the United States and that countries who violate international norms regarding chemical weapons need to be held accountable," Hayden said."

 

http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/29/world/europe/syria-civil-war/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

 

oh geez, i feel like compson each time i put a link in a thread hahaha

 

but ya, as far as the hypocrisy regarding the past, i can't really disagree with you there.

[Guest chunky]

It's not exactly the aim for USA to take over the Syrian government. It's more like the state of Syria itself must collapse. There won't be a government left to take over. It will be like the 14th century, before today's state system came about. For more on the probable future collapse of the state system then read Martin Van Creveld's The rise and decline of the state. He is an Israeli military historian, explains a lot without resorting to conspiracies or controversial opinions. It might be available on the bookos pdf website. Still haven't finished it myself

[goDel]

i propose not immediately supporting an invasion until there is a supplemental platform for reconstruction in tow. i fail to see how that would be unreasonable.

What is a supplemental platform for reconstruction and what makes you say it isn't there?

 

If it is what I think it is, there was plenty of reconstruction in afghanistan and iraq... or supplemental platform. So, you're OK with those interventions? I obviously don't understand...

[Guest chunky]

USA can't even reconstruct Detroit

[goDel]

USA can't even reconstruct Detroit

What's that supposed to mean? You're comparing a war zone with a city whose economy was tied to one specific type of industry?

 

They can't turn back time to the 1950s when all the cars in the world were still made by hand in detroit...

[SR4]

 

i propose not immediately supporting an invasion until there is a supplemental platform for reconstruction in tow. i fail to see how that would be unreasonable.

What is a supplemental platform for reconstruction and what makes you say it isn't there?

 

If it is what I think it is, there was plenty of reconstruction in afghanistan and iraq... or supplemental platform. So, you're OK with those interventions? I obviously don't understand...

 

 

 

Yes, the reconstruction efforts in those nations have obviously gone swimmingly. No insurrections, insurgencies or political turmoil. No violations of territorial sovereignty by Turkey or other regional powers. Far lower casualties than under Saddam or the Taliban. One third of the population has access to clean drinking water in post-war Iraq, but it was probably worse during Saddam's regime, right? Decrease in sectarian violence. And we obviously did this for purely humanitarian reasons, not to sell off the Majnoon and Rumalia oil fields to BP or Chevron.

 

I opposed intervention in both of those situations, because the intervention was based on incredibly faulty evidence, and that said faulty evidence was largely manufactured by groups that had economic interests in these formerly centrally controlled countries. And it pretty much showed that we weren't prepared for the post-war realities, there was no "Mission Accomplished", and ultimately, while the US debt clock ramps up quite a bit more as a result, the majority of the Iraqi and Afghan people have seen no discernible relief or improvement, and in many cases such as the Maywand District murders, have seen no difference between the authoritarianism of the former Taliban government, and the US occupation.

 

Im not going to sit here and write a thesis about all this again. I just want people to cut the bullshit and stop acting like we were going to invade Syria for humanitarian purposes, rather than just admitting the point is to further destabilize the Iranian border and spheres of influence.

[Alcofribas]

^ yes

[goDel]

?

 

OK

 

So nothing should be done? Again, it's a simple question. And all I see is talk about possible outcomes and what not.

 

So we don't want what happened in all those other instances, but what do we want? What do you propose should be done?

[SR4]

I'm not saying nothing should be done. And just because you phrase it as a simple question doesn't make the situation simple. There aren't moral absolutes in regards to world polities. But there are massive distinctions and differences of effect in regards to acting quickly and for the wrong motivations, versus slowly putting together evidence and carefully planning out a multinational cooperative effort to aid those that truly need aid. We need more schools, infrastructure and resources distributed to the Syrian people, not military installations, leagues of fresh MPs, and the resources going outside of the country to strengthen U.S., British and French control over their former playgrounds. Call it naive, but it's no more naive than justifying the destruction and occupation of yet ANOTHER Middle Eastern nation, encouraging more sectarian violence and cultural schisms to "save the oppressed people of Syria".

 

What should we do about it? Have you ever considered asking why we should do something about it? Does it truly threaten US military interests? Does it truly threaten the economic well-being of our nations? You advocate pragmatism in a hawkish respect, I'm advocating it from a "war as a last resort" perspective. Chemical weapons and tyrants are horrible, horrible things in the many cruel ways of the world, but that they exist does not instantly necessitate the need for us to act out of a horribly contrived sense of moral superiority. Again, I'll harp on the example of Iraqi chemical usage in the 80s, chemicals that we knowingly sold to them for the same use that Assad is now engaging in. Stop pretending this is a moral action; our security interests were practically salivating at the mouth to know that Iraqis were gassing the Kurds in order to stabilize border pockets against the Iranian armies.

 

That Washington post editorial really says it all. We want to launch cruise missiles into Syria to "teach them a lesson". What in the world does that actually accomplish? By teaching them a lesson will they learn to respect their Western cultural elders, and start playing nice with regular old machine guns and grenades? Our military and economic superiority over the region is already unquestionable.

 

What do I propose be done? Wait it out, or ONLY resort to a UN peacekeeping force, and only that as a military option. No unilateral action. Get far more intelligence on the situation. We don't even have an exact account of who these rebel forces are and what they plan to do when Assad is removed from power. You really want to arm a group of rebels so scattered ideologically that John McCain posed with a few of them years ago, without knowing that they were implicated in terrorist attacks against civilians? Can you imagine the propaganda effort the extremist factions will put worth as yet another indisputable example of the West forcing themselves on the Middle East? Iran has sent troops to support Assad. Do we really want to risk a confrontation with Iran and open up a third major war? (Some would argue that our top brass absolutely do, but that's another argument). We could certainly best Iran, but they are a developed nation, not exactly the weakened Baath ragtag militia that Hussein had. That will cost money, resources, and ultimately lives. All for what? You have no problem with the idea of risking this, and in addition are critical of considering possible consequences or fallout. How exactly is this the most pragmatic solution? I simply disagree with acting first, and putting the pieces together later.

 

My position is to wait it out. Assad's regime has been shaky ever since he first held power, and this is obviously a desperate attempt to solidify control over what little he has left. His days are numbered. As horrible as his actions are, military intervention is not a necessity, and certainly isn't a humanitarian effort. Syria does not represent anything even remotely close to a threat to the U.S. or most of the other potential actors. We risk far more to intervene in a situation not yet fleshed out by intelligence, and the Syrian people are far more likely to suffer. The only thing that will have changed is the people in power and the weapons used.