Syrian Strike Vote

[Falvlun]

I abstain from voting because the UN has not yet released the results of its investigation and the U.S. has not yet made public the evidence which it claims proves the Assad regime is responsible for the chemical attacks.

Is it your opinion then, that if Assad is responsible for the chemical attacks, that we should go forward with the military strike?

 

[Shiranui117]

Absolutely not. If we attack Syria, we'll be helping Islamic terrorists--many of whom are affiliated with al-Qaeda, mind you--to take over an entire country, and once the Syrian rebels are in power, they WILL commit genocide against Christians, Shiite Muslims, Alawites, and anyone else who disagrees with Salafist Islam.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Is it your opinion then, that if Assad is responsible for the chemical attacks, that we should go forward with the military strike?

I lean towards that opinion, yes, as long as the strike is not excessive.

The whole Syria issue is confused (for me, at least) by the fact that about half of this country will literally oppose anything that appears to be supported by Obama. If he's a dove, they're hawks. If he's a hawk, they're doves. I have one Republican friend who said weeks ago "Obama drew a 'red line' on Syria but he won't follow through on his word". I have another Republican friend who just told me "Obama only wants to strike Syria because he said he would if they used chemical weapons". Ummm .... okay .... so .... you think Obama .... shouldn't do the things he says he will do? Remember, if these people had won in 2008 their man McCain would have practically invaded Syria by now.

Because these people just adopt any argument which opposes Obama, and there is essentially no way to reason with them, it's very difficult for me to gauge whether perhaps they are (accidentally) right that the U.S. should stay out of Syria.

 

[nazz]

I lean towards that opinion, yes, as long as the strike is not excessive.

The whole Syria issue is confused (for me, at least) by the fact that about half of this country will literally oppose anything that appears to be supported by Obama. If he's a dove, they're hawks. If he's a hawk, they're doves. I have one Republican friend who said weeks ago "Obama drew a 'red line' on Syria but he won't follow through on his word". I have another Republican friend who just told me "Obama only wants to strike Syria because he said he would if they used chemical weapons". Ummm .... okay .... so .... you think Obama .... shouldn't do the things he says he will do? Remember, if these people had won in 2008 their man McCain would have practically invaded Syria by now.

Because these people just adopt any argument which opposes Obama, and there is essentially no way to reason with them, it's very difficult for me to gauge whether perhaps they are (accidentally) right that the U.S. should stay out of Syria.

Yes, excellent points

 

[Brickjectivity]

This is the problem with such intervention: It doesn't solve anything. It gets rid of one crazy dictator or genocidal regime and replaces it with another, or simple anarchy, or terrorists. The people are no better off. In fact, what little stability they might have had is now completely gone. We have seen this time and again. It's time for us to wake up and read our history books.

This is partly how I feel about it. The same people who act like they want us to 'Do something' will criticize us for it later.

 

[esmith]

I lean towards that opinion, yes, as long as the strike is not excessive.

What would you consider excessive?
What would you consider non-excessive?

I will play the devil's advocate in the following.
Let's say the military strike does not affect Assad's capability to stop what his military is doing, killing his own people whether with WMD or conventional weapons. What has the US accomplished by launching TLAM's into Syria?
What could be struck by TLAM's that would stop the use of WMD? Other than the WMD storage sites which is a BIG NO NO.
What kind of military strike would convince Assad not to use chemical weapons again?
Would not a strike against Assad's capability to use WMD's not change the possible outcome of the war? A regime change? Which Obama said was not the purpose of the strike. Remember that delivery systems for WMD are missile launchers, artillery components, and aircraft. If these systems are taken out it changes the entire strategic advantage Assad has over the rebels. Thus the possibility of a regime change

A good article on this is: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23946071

 

[Aquitaine]

I think that is simply a misperception on your part. And here is the evidence of that. Those same people who were chanting "USA, USA!" are against this intervention! Why? Because there is nothing rational or ethical about their response. It's all emotional. After 9-11 many Americans wanted revenge pure and simple. And they exacted their bloodlust on a people who had absolutely nothing to do with 9-11 nor were any threat to them. Their attitude now is "who gives a crap about a bunch of towel heads slaughtering one another".

Let's remember that President Obama, the one calling for this strike, was opposed to the war in Iraq. The people calling for this strike are doing so on humanitarian grounds, not because of some self-inflated jingoistic national ego.

Riiight, Humanitarian grounds. Such tactics as arming these Islamist rebels with weapons - so humanitarian!

As a general rule, charities deal with things on humanitarian grounds, not governments and militaries. As I said earlier, if the US government is so concerned with humanitarian issues across the world, then why aren't they helping people in Zimbabwe and North Korea who're being assaulted by their own governments? Why wasn't there anything done in Rwanda or in East Timor? Why did the US government support Suharto knowing full well of his war crimes committed in East Timor? Why did the US/UK back the Iranian Shah and assist in ousting Iran's first democratically-elected head of state in '53?

I could go on, but basically the idea that the US government (or virtually any government for that matter) does stuff like this on "humanitarian grounds" quite frankly I find rather naive.

Not trying to be nasty to you here, I'm just being honest given the US' recent history. :yes:

Absolutely not. And I explained why previously. I stated at the outset that in my view violence is only justified when it prevents a greater violence from occurring. That is why I consider almost all war immoral. The scenario you suggest would have led to greater violence as the US would have struck back at Russia and/or China. Assad has no real capability of striking back at the US.

So as long as he "can't hit back" basically? Who's to say his supporters won't retaliate by proxy? Maybe Iran will attack Israel if the US attacks Assad - wouldn't that come back to bite you in the anus?

That's a bit of an exaggeration, no? We should do what we can, when we can. But again, we should only use violence if it is truly justified.

The US government can't even look after it's own damn people, what makes you think they're doing this sabre-rattling with Assad for justifiable humanitarian reasons?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I find the current vote of 8:37:4 to be intriguing. I wonder how many of the 37 no votes would have voted against bombing the rail infrastructure leading into Auschwitz.

 

[YmirGF]

I find the current vote of 8:37:4 to be intriguing. I wonder how many of the 37 no votes would have voted against bombing the rail infrastructure leading into Auschwitz.

It is hardly a fair comparison, Jayhawker Soule.

Given that there has been a few chemical weapons violations since the UN passed it's resolution, way back when, none of which led to military responses, the precedent against military action is the existing norm. (In my humble opinion it is your Egomaniac-in-Chief who is looking for a victory on the world stage - maybe then someone might actually take him seriously.)

 

[Revoltingest]

It is hardly a fair comparrison, Jayhawker Soule.

There's some merit in the comparison. For me, it points out how pre-emptive war can have
benefits. The problem is that it appears there's a higher probability of backfiring for us.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

It is hardly a fair comparison, Jayhawker Soule.

And no true Scotsman would use chemical weapons. Thanks for chiming in ...

 

[YmirGF]

There's some merit in the comparison. For me, it points out how pre-emptive war can have
benefits. The problem is that it appears there's a higher probability of backfiring for us.

Un petit peu de mérite peut-être, mais encore, pas beaucoup.

 

[YmirGF]

And no true Scotsman would use chemical weapons. Thanks for chiming in ...

Admittedly it is amusing to watch a small pack of Chihuahua's baring their teeth... I'll bet Assad is terribly worried.

 

[Revoltingest]

Un petit peu de mérite peut-être, mais encore, pas beaucoup.

Gosh gollykins! I don't know what that means, but
it sounds like I should make sure me kilt is secure!

 

[Aquitaine]

I find the current vote of 8:37:4 to be intriguing. I wonder how many of the 37 no votes would have voted against bombing the rail infrastructure leading into Auschwitz.

Given the complexity of WWII and the genuine threat of the Third Reich to "us", I really don't think that's a fair comparison.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

What would you consider excessive?
What would you consider non-excessive?

I don't honestly know, but a good rule of thumb would probably be that the military strike should not kill more innocent civilians than would have otherwise been killed if there was no military strike and Assad carried out more gas attacks. Wouldn't you agree?

I will play the devil's advocate in the following.
Let's say the military strike does not affect Assad's capability to stop what his military is doing, killing his own people whether with WMD or conventional weapons. What has the US accomplished by launching TLAM's into Syria?
What could be struck by TLAM's that would stop the use of WMD? Other than the WMD storage sites which is a BIG NO NO.
What kind of military strike would convince Assad not to use chemical weapons again?

I would guess, using very simplified cost-benefit analysis, that if the strike reduces Assad's advantage against the rebels somewhat more than the advantage Assad gained by using chemical weapons, then that would be a deterrent to future uses of chemical weapons.

For example, hypothetically, suppose that by killing civilians with chemical weapons, Assad calculated he reduced the number of rebel fighters who will be recruited this year by 1,000 (due to the psychological impact). Then a military strike which kills 1,500 of Assad's soldiers would mean the decision to use chemical weapons was a net loss for Assad. That's a deterrent. (This is of course an artificially simplified example just for the sake of argument.)

Would not a strike against Assad's capability to use WMD's not change the possible outcome of the war?

Yes, it might. Aside from minimizing violence, that's another reason I said the strike should not be excessive. It is not America's place to get involved in foreign countries' civil wars. It is our place, IMHO, to work with the rest of the world to deter the use of chemical weapons. If a strike is carried out, then, its severity should be sufficient to accomplish the latter only.

There are no perfect solutions, of course, and if you really want to play devil's advocate you could say that it's impossible for any strike to deter chemical weapons without also de-throning Assad. At the end of the day, I would rather risk that an evil dictator loses a war because America would not allow him to gas enough civilians for him to win, than to say that America calibrated how it tolerates the use of gas on civilians because, hey, it's okay to gas civilians if they support Islamists.

Remember that delivery systems for WMD are missile launchers, artillery components, and aircraft. If these systems are taken out it changes the entire strategic advantage Assad has over the rebels. Thus the possibility of a regime change

Yes well if the real world was truly digital, and the decision was constrained to taking out ALL or NONE of Assad's missile launchers, artillery, and aircraft, then you would have a point.

 

[LuisDantas]

I find the current vote of 8:37:4 to be intriguing. I wonder how many of the 37 no votes would have voted against bombing the rail infrastructure leading into Auschwitz.

That is interesting, seeing how both situations are to some degree results of half-hearted, inconsequential meddling into complex political and military situations after World War I. And, of course, in both cases bombing with no commitment to anything of more substance would be a frightening bad idea.

Incidentally, I would. Among other reasons, because I have good reason to believe that bombing those railways would cause a lot more harm than good - including the employment of even more slave labor from the very prisoners meant for Auschwitz in order to fix those railways.

Realistically, one could hardly expect Nazi Germany to give up on its railways due to threat of further bombing. Whatever else you may say about the mediocre painter, he was not one to give up easily (there is very good evidence that he would not give up on sending non-existent troops to their deaths). And since it did not mind employing slave labor to a staggering huge scale under truly inhuman conditions to build Albert Speer's obscene Welthauptstadt Germania, what are the odds that it would refrain from using it to repair railways?

I'm just that odd kind of person who does not believe in the constructive, peace-making powers of exploding missiles. Bear with me.

 

[LuisDantas]

There's some merit in the comparison. For me, it points out how pre-emptive war can have
benefits. The problem is that it appears there's a higher probability of backfiring for us.

Out of the top of my mind, the notion of benefic pre-emptive war would be hylarious if it were not obscene and tragical. But maybe you are right anyway. Would you have any examples to convince me otherwise?

That comparison you mention was an hypothetical - one that I just pointed out to be unconvincing, at that - so something else would be needed to convince me.

 

[Revoltingest]

Out of the top of my mind, the notion of benefic pre-emptive war would be hylarious if it were not obscene and tragical. But maybe you are right anyway. Would you have any examples to convince me otherwise?
That comparison you mention was an hypothetical - one that I just pointed out to be unconvincing, at that - so something else would be needed to convince me.

Pre-emptive war against Hitler (assassinating him?) would likely have been good.
Our conquering of Hawaii appears positive, particularly given its usefulness in
the war with Japan.
I don't have any certainty that the Syrian war will fail to meet our goals (whatever
they are), but I don't see a likelihood that it will be worth the cost.

 

[LuisDantas]

Pre-emptive war against Hitler (assassinating him?) would likely have been good.

Maybe.

I honestly doubt it, though. The supreme irony of Hitler is that ultimately he was a very mediocre, almost completely inconsequential man. He knew how to make charismatic public speeches, and that was it.

I see no more reason to believe Hitler's death would be good than I see to believe that Archduke Ferdinand's was. War and its disgraces do not come out of ill luck of the dice.

Our conquering of Hawaii appears positive, particularly given its usefulness in the war with Japan.

How does pre-emptive war figure into that conquest, though? I'm not very informed about the History of Hawaii. I can certainly see having access to it as positive, for what it is worth... and he Japanese attack to Pearl Harbor fits the bill for an act of pre-emptive war nicely IMO, but I very much doubt you are claiming that it was a good idea!