Syrian Strike Vote

[Revoltingest]

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.

That's all it takes to be "consequential".

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.

There are no guarantees.





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![/quote]

 

[LuisDantas]

There are no guarantees.

Not to make too fine a point of it, but Archduke Ferdinand was seen as something of a troublemaker back in the day. There were newspaper articles mourning his death all the while hoping that it would help in avoiding further bloodshed.

What happened instead was that it became the immediate trigger of World War I.

For all anyone knows or can guess, killing Hitler could well have made things even worse than they turned out.

 

[Revoltingest]

Not to make too fine a point of it, but Archduke Ferdinand was seen as something of a troublemaker back in the day. There were newspaper articles mourning his death all the while hoping that it would help in avoiding further bloodshed.
What happened instead was that it became the immediate trigger of World War I.
For all anyone knows or can guess, killing Hitler could well have made things even worse than they turned out.

Should we have stayed out of WW2?

 

[LuisDantas]

Should we have stayed out of WW2?

That is not IMO the clear-cut question that it may seem to be. A very good case can be made that it was destructive to keep away from its causes, which go back way into WW1 at the very least. By the time of Pearl Harbor much of the damage was already done and irreversible.

In a very real sense, entering WW2 at all was an admission of failure. War is best handled by avoiding its triggering, and at that the USA certainly failed, despite having had decades of opportunity for attempting it if it wanted.

Admittedly, the zeistgeist of the time may well have simply forbidden it anyway. But there is little evidence that the USA even wanted to avoid WW2 or perceived its true significance at the timeframe when it could make much of a difference.

So it comes down to what premises we take about the historical moment of the choice. After Pearl Harbor, no, I guess there was no true reasonable choice of staying out of WW2. But by that point far too much was lost already, and the war had to be won mainly by putting up a better enduring economical infra-structure than the Axis could.

The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, though, should never have happened. And I mean never.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I wonder how many of the 37 no votes would have voted against bombing the rail infrastructure leading into Auschwitz.

...
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.

(Remarkable.)

 

[Falvlun]

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.

The whole issue is undoubtedly politicized. The conservatives are put in a tough spot: I have no doubt that had a republican been elected, we would have been in Syria already, and half this country would be accordingly all gung-ho for it. Obama is doing precisely what they would do, except later and lesser (which is why they were calling him "weak on terrorism" and such.) But since they are hell-bent on opposing him at all turns, they must therefore oppose him now.

The liberals are much more interesting, imo. Their natural inclination would be to oppose military intervention. But since Obama is the one championing it, many feel as if they need to support him. Or at least, go through with it so that Obama doesn't look bad. However, by all indications, the liberals are not swallowing it. A military strike is extremely unpopular, country-wide, which means that liberals have jumped ship (or rather, stuck to their guns, despite loyalty to Obama.)

But, politics aside, let's try to look at this rationally.

What would be the objectives of going into Syria? Ostentatiously, it is to make it clear that the use of chemical weapons is going to be punished, and on humanitarian grounds, to protect the civilian population from further attacks.

Though to be honest, I bet it has more to do with oil than anything. Humanitarian crises occur around the world, and we only intervene if there is a threat to our supply of resources.

Anyway, lets go with the party line and assume we would be performing these strikes for humanitarian purposes.

Would a strike achieve these goals?

No one can see into the future. There are a lot of "what ifs" swirling around Syria: What if we do nothing, and they use them again? What if the world laughs at us for not sticking to our guns? What if more lives are lost by our inaction?

And the opposing side: What if our action triggers a larger inflammation? What if our strikes end up killing a substantial number of civilians (it would be naive to think that we'd succeed in killing no innocents)? What if Assad retaliates?

We don't know the future. We can only guess. But, we can look to the past. What has been the result of previous US interventions in the various internal conflicts around the world?

Almost invariably, we get rid of one bad guy, only to find out later that the guy we supported was another crazy awful bad guy. We give arms to the side we want to win, only to have them pointed at us at some later date. We leave the country in worse shape than it was previously-- full of anarchy, bombed out buildings, and dangerous militias. We kill innocent people, and they hate us for it. The rest of the world refuses to work with us because they see us as power hungry war mongers.

Our humanitarian objectives simply aren't met. And I see no reason to assume that they would be met this time around when our history is strewn with such failures.

 

[LuisDantas]

(Remarkable.)

Truly? In which way?

 

[Revoltingest]

The liberals are much more interesting, imo. Their natural inclination would be to oppose military intervention. But since Obama is the one championing it, many feel as if they need to support him. Or at least, go through with it so that Obama doesn't look bad. However, by all indications, the liberals are not swallowing it. A military strike is extremely unpopular, country-wide, which means that liberals have jumped ship (or rather, stuck to their guns, despite loyalty to Obama.)

There is also Ed Asner's explanation for the dearth of leftish criticism for Obama.
Syria: Why Hollywood's Anti-War Voices Are Quiet

"A lot of people don't want to feel anti-black by being opposed to Obama,"

After the left's concerted campaign of labeling all of Obama's foes as "racist", they
are naturally frightened to be hoist by their own petard. Cowards, I say they are.
If they oppose the war, then oppose the war without fear of specious labels.

 

[esmith]

It appears now that our allies have different figures of the number of causalities in the latest chemical attack. The Us say's 1,492, the British say 350 and the French say 281, experts(?) had created models that are consistent with the 1,500 figure. Does it really matter on the number or just that WMD's were used? Above was taken from the following source: U.S. figure for casualties in Syria attack much higher than others' - latimes.com

 

[Reverend Rick]

We should all feel sorry for our Liberal friends right now. Do they blindly follow their messiah or do they stick to their basic principles that war is bad and buck their President?

Will the progressives who called for the impeachment of GWB be consistant with Obama if he makes decisions similar to Bush?

Even Nancy Pelosi has put on her war paint, what is up with that?

 

[esmith]

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?

No,I don't agree. I would not make a decision based on numbers of causalities, and in your assessment it would be civilian causalities. In your scenario, (hypothetical reasoning) let say the estimate of civilian causalities if another WMD was to occur would be 1000. Then as long as a missile strike against Assad killed less than 1000 civilians it would not be considered an excessive strike.

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.)

I remember the last time the cost-benefit analysis was used in a conflict was by the Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara during Vietnam and it turned into a total debacle.

 

[Aquitaine]

I remember the last time the cost-benefit analysis was used in a conflict was by the Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara during Vietnam and it turned into a total debacle.

Indeed. Kind of scary when you think about it; trying to win a war based on number-crunching. Well, I guess it makes sense since he was a business executive!

 

[xkatz]

If Obama/Congress order it, I will support the decision.

The sad thing is that the opposite should be true. Congressional members should vote based on their constituency's approval or disapproval.

The problem with Obama is he is putting it to Congressional vote to make himself appear more democratic than he is and so if the war gets shot-down by Congress he can have someone to blame. The problem with Congress is that some members will vote against their own constituency and some (such as Boehner) may opt out of the vote altogether.

I think what we need to do is send Obama and Congress to fight the war.

And as for the poll question, I would have to say NO.

 

[Aquitaine]

Should we have stayed out of WW2?

Personally, I think we all should have stayed out of WW1 at least. Maybe then there wouldn't have been a sequel.

 

[desideraht]

Personally, I am not a fan. But as someone who wants to join the military, I support the decisions of our President, who is our Commander-in-Chief. My mentality behind all military decisions will be "Oh well, let's make the best of it!" If we strike Syria, consequences will be dire. Is it worth the potential for international conflict, perhaps incurring the beginning of "World War III"? Our leaders must carefully consider this. Has our world reached a corruption so immense that we can only cure it through Destruction and Rebirth? It may be time. Only time will tell.

Personally, I think we all should have stayed out of WW1 at least. Maybe then there wouldn't have been a sequel.

Every great series is a trilogy! Perhaps that is why they are considering a strike.
(Please forgive my horribly morbid and shocking sense of humour)

 

[metis]

Or it could be acknowledging that we have too many domestic problems to take care of, too much debt to pay down, and our military bill is already beyond staggering. The American government is often hated by many in the Middle East because of their constant badgering and intervention, and this hatred is often extended towards the American public who many times hold the opinion the United States government needs to leave the Middle East alone.

I can both understand and sympathize, but sometimes we have to work through or emotions and tiredness to do that which may have to be done, and this is one of those times, imo. We have to remember that inaction still has its consequences, and some inaction may well come back to haunt us.

It's a tough call either way.

 

[LuisDantas]

Indeed. Kind of scary when you think about it; trying to win a war based on number-crunching. Well, I guess it makes sense since he was a business executive!

Number-crunching is hardly wrong. One should just never lose sight that dealing with numbers and mathematical models does not excuse one of moral responsibility. Or of the responsibility of choosing such a model (there always many possible) and of dealing with its shortcomings (which will exist almost by definition).

Ultimately, the failure is not in number-crunching, but in the mishappen social responsibility that fails to create the political environment for war not to happen. People talk about "enemy nations" as if that made any sense. And at that point, all is lost.

 

[metis]

We should all feel sorry for our Liberal friends right now. Do they blindly follow their messiah or do they stick to their basic principles that war is bad and buck their President?

Will the progressives who called for the impeachment of GWB be consistant with Obama if he makes decisions similar to Bush?

Even Nancy Pelosi has put on her war paint, what is up with that?

I follow politics very closely and I don't recall any talk of impeachment of Bush coming from any serious political figure. Secondly, if these "Liberals" are so willing to "blindly" follow their "messiah", then why are so many questioning and willing to go against him? Seems like you totally undermined your entire point as you posted an oxymoron.

Finally, Bush jumped the gun on Iraq and, unfortunately, also suckered way too many Democrats in going with him, but Obama has not done the same.

 

[Revoltingest]

Finally, Bush jumped the gun on Iraq and, unfortunately, also suckered way too many Democrats in going with him, but Obama has not done the same.

Democrats have a history of war lust too, so it was quite easy to "sucker" them
into going along. Since we're so aware of the disastrous effects of Bush jumping
the gun, I'm actually surprised at the weak opposition to Obama's doing the same.

 

[LuisDantas]

Democrats have a history of war lust too, so it was quite easy to "sucker" them
into going along. Since we're so aware of the disastrous effects of Bush jumping
the gun, I'm actually surprised at the weak opposition to Obama's doing the same.

So am I.

My best guess is that there is too much of an earning for a "victory" around.

Even if it is such a transparently expensive, useless, dishonorable, meaningless and coward "victory".