Syrian Strike Vote

[Falvlun]

Because generating electricity ain't the same as fighting a war.

I chose that profession since it is rather dangerous, as well as often having lasting negative effects on one's health.

Secondly, it's Chicken-hawking: you want to be all gung-ho with it like a Hawk, but Chicken out at the idea of you yourself signing up to do something about the very issue you're apparently so "appalled" at.

I've come to learn that, when these people say "we should go to war/intervene" what they really mean is "other people should go to war/intervene on my behalf, so I can feel all smug and prowd2b'murican".

I fail to see why someone who doesn't want to be a soldier, but believes that our military might should be used, should automatically be considered a "chicken-hawk".

I don't doubt that some people may be living vicariously through our military. But you also seem appalled at the idea that we send the military to do our bidding-- "us" being the American taxpayer. The military exists to serve the American people and this country's interests. And if the nation, or the people, or the politicians they have elected decide to use the military, well, that's precisely the reason they are there-- to be used.

Meh, I just don't like how people seem to view military personnel as just disposable machines, that should be sent off to some far land so we at home can feel morally superior about some "cause" or "crusade".

I guess I'm just not as quick to want to send somebody's father, husband, brother, son, or mother, wife, sister or daughter off to potentially die for yet another totally and utterly pointless conflict, whether or not said individuals took an Oath to potentially do so - whilst in the relatively safe and reassuring environment of their homeland.

Of course we shouldn't undertake such things lightly. And we, as a nation, really need to do some soul searching over how we are going to use our military in the future. I'd much prefer us to shrink our military, use it almost exclusively for defense of the homeland, and to stop, for the love of pete, getting into middle eastern wars or doing any other sort of unilateral world policing.

But as for "sending off" our military to potentially die, as much as I respect the hardship of such a job and get that patriotic tingle whenever I see someone from the military, at the end of the day, they knew what they were getting into when they signed up. Many jobs are dangerous, and our families are being sent to them every day too. I don't see our military personnel as disposable machines, but neither do I see them as passive innocents, being "sent" to war: They signed up for this, they are getting paid for this, they have been trained for this, and we have spent billions of dollars for this. You don't join the military to be kept safe.

 

[nazz]

Go on then Mr. Pacifist, tell me why the US essentially committing an act of war against Syria is justifiable, in the sense that it would be necessary for the defence of the nation?

Tell me why it would be worth risking American lives, not to mention worth all the Syrian civilians who will inevitably be caught up in the strikes?

I think violence is justified if it prevents a greater violence from occurring. So if a strike on Assad's chemical weapons facilities prevents another massacre from occurring I would not oppose it.

 

[LuisDantas]

I think violence is justified if it prevents a greater violence from occurring. So if a strike on Assad's chemical weapons facilities prevents another massacre from occurring I would not oppose it.

Do you think it will?

What I have learned so far leads me to believe that it neither will nor will there be any other desirable consequence.

 

[Aquitaine]

I think violence is justified if it prevents a greater violence from occurring. So if a strike on Assad's chemical weapons facilities prevents another massacre from occurring I would not oppose it.

Well then you may as well declare war on the entire planet. Nobody gave a flying **** with Rwanda and East Timor, but if it's a Middle-Eastern country suddenly we're outraged - I do not understand.

Plus, striking Syria will 1) Add to the body count and 2) Provoke and "justify" a retaliation, which will again add to the cycle of violence.

 

[nazz]

Well then you may as well declare war on the entire planet. Nobody gave a flying **** with Rwanda and East Timor, but if it's a Middle-Eastern country suddenly we're outraged - I do not understand.

*I* care about the deaths of all innocent people (I even care about the death of guilty people!)

Plus, striking Syria will 1) Add to the body count and 2) Provoke and "justify" a retaliation, which will again add to the cycle of violence.

People may die in such a strike, true, but if in dying more lives are saved that is justifiable, IMO. Assad can't really retaliate against the US and would probably refrain even if he could. But if we do nothing he will be emboldened to keep gassing his own people. That is for certain.

 

[LuisDantas]

While I don't always agree with this article, you may want to take a look at it.

9 questions about Syria you were too embarrassed to ask

 

[nazz]

While I don't always agree with this article, you may want to take a look at it.

9 questions about Syria you were too embarrassed to ask

Very good and I agree 100%

 

[Aquitaine]

I chose that profession since it is rather dangerous, as well as often having lasting negative effects on one's health.

Wait, you chose to work in Energy because it's dangerous and bad for your health?

I fail to see why someone who doesn't want to be a soldier, but believes that our military might should be used, should automatically be considered a "chicken-hawk".

In my opinion, it depends on their reasons for wanting whatever military action, and how much they want it.

I don't doubt that some people may be living vicariously through our military. But you also seem appalled at the idea that we send the military to do our bidding-- "us" being the American taxpayer. The military exists to serve the American people and this country's interests. And if the nation, or the people, or the politicians they have elected decide to use the military, well, that's precisely the reason they are there-- to be used.

These are people who have agreed to put their lives in mortal danger for the defence of their homeland. Their offer is to be used only as a last resort should their nation come under direct severe attack. Their pledge to risk life and limb if necessary shouldn't be abused, they don't pledge to be used as expendable pawns for some sociopathic foreign policy, petty politics, or for Oil.

The US has a habit of doing just that.

Of course we shouldn't undertake such things lightly. And we, as a nation, really need to do some soul searching over how we are going to use our military in the future. I'd much prefer us to shrink our military, use it almost exclusively for defense of the homeland, and to stop, for the love of pete, getting into middle eastern wars or doing any other sort of unilateral world policing.

We are in agreement here.

But as for "sending off" our military to potentially die, as much as I respect the hardship of such a job and get that patriotic tingle whenever I see someone from the military, at the end of the day, they knew what they were getting into when they signed up. Many jobs are dangerous, and our families are being sent to them every day too. I don't see our military personnel as disposable machines, but neither do I see them as passive innocents, being "sent" to war: They signed up for this, they are getting paid for this, they have been trained for this, and we have spent billions of dollars for this. You don't join the military to be kept safe.

True, you don't join to be kept safe, but the idea is that if you're going to be exposed to danger, it should be for a reason that warrants it (i.e direct attack on homeland), not yet another BS war in the Middle-East.

Also, no amount of training or dollars can truly prepare people for what they may encounter. It really does upset me when I hear "we're paying them for it" as some sort of excuse - like "we're paying you to go die overseas in a needless conflict".

Finally, I wonder how many people signed up ten years ago because they were blatantly lied to and convinced Saddam Hussein was going to unleash 9/11 v.2 on them? I wonder how many 19 year olds sign up to pay for education, or because they've been told their "protecting freedom and democracy from terrorism"?

 

[Aquitaine]

*I* care about the deaths of all innocent people (I even care about the death of guilty people!)



People may die in such a strike, true, but if in dying more lives are saved that is justifiable, IMO. Assad can't really retaliate against the US and would probably refrain even if he could. But if we do nothing he will be emboldened to keep gassing his own people. That is for certain.

Let's just remember that this of course is currently still speculation, as in who was actually employing these chemical weapons. Also, Assad's regime may not directly attack the US, but I'm sure they could via proxy as retaliation.

Innocent people will inevitably be caught up in US strikes against the country, as well as any blowback which could occur as a result. I don't see how, from a moral perspective, such action is justifiable. Nor do I see why it is any of our business.

I wonder how many North Koreans have been murdered by their own government, shall the US strike North Korea too?

 

[nazz]

Let's just remember that this of course is currently still speculation, as in who was actually employing these chemical weapons. Also, Assad's regime may not directly attack the US, but I'm sure they could via proxy as retaliation.

Innocent people will inevitably be caught up in US strikes against the country, as well as any blowback which could occur as a result. I don't see how, from a moral perspective, such action is justifiable. Nor do I see why it is any of our business.

I wonder how many North Koreans have been murdered by their own government, shall the US strike North Korea too?

My moral perspective is that we should do everything in our power to prevent the needless suffering of others. Do you agree or disagree with that?

 

[Falvlun]

People may die in such a strike, true, but if in dying more lives are saved that is justifiable, IMO.

I find the rationale of bombing people to save them from being bombed by other people to be a bit lacking.

 

[Falvlun]

Wait, you chose to work in Energy because it's dangerous and bad for your health?

Haha, no. Sorry-- that was why I chose that profession for my example.

In my opinion, it depends on their reasons for wanting whatever military action, and how much they want it.

I am rather skeptical of any of our recent military activities. It all seems to boil down to oil.

Anyway, I agree that the merit of sending our troops into any conflict should be weighed by good reasons and level of necessity. If someone deems the reason and necessity to be high enough to warrant military action, does that still mean they should be willing to enlist or else be labeled a hypocrite?

These are people who have agreed to put their lives in mortal danger for the defence of their homeland. Their offer is to be used only as a last resort should their nation come under direct severe attack. Their pledge to risk life and limb if necessary shouldn't be abused, they don't pledge to be used as expendable pawns for some sociopathic foreign policy, petty politics, or for Oil.

The US has a habit of doing just that.


We are in agreement here.


True, you don't join to be kept safe, but the idea is that if you're going to be exposed to danger, it should be for a reason that warrants it (i.e direct attack on homeland), not yet another BS war in the Middle-East.

Also, no amount of training or dollars can truly prepare people for what they may encounter. It really does upset me when I hear "we're paying them for it" as some sort of excuse - like "we're paying you to go die overseas in a needless conflict".

Finally, I wonder how many people signed up ten years ago because they were blatantly lied to and convinced Saddam Hussein was going to unleash 9/11 v.2 on them? I wonder how many 19 year olds sign up to pay for education, or because they've been told their "protecting freedom and democracy from terrorism"?

We are in agreement that a) We shouldn't go to Syria (at least not yet), and b) that it really sucks that we have been sending our military personnel into harms way for wars that they really shouldn't be in.

My only thing is that I just don't have a lot of empathy for those who sign up wanting to pay for college, or through idealistic motivations, or for whatever reason, and end up having to fight in a war. At the end of the day, they chose a profession that has that risk, and regardless of motivation, they were going into this knowing that.

EDIT:
Just to clarify, I do sympathize with service people and their families for having to go to war. That totally sucks. I'm just not sympathetic about the whole "I only signed up because of this... and now I have to go to war" lament.

 

[nazz]

I find the rationale of bombing people to save them from being bombed by other people to be a bit lacking.

The point is not to bomb people but the installations capable of launching chemical weapons. But If the defenders of those installations are killed in order to save far more other lives I can live with that.

Let me ask you something. If a sniper were killing numerous random people would you have problem with taking him out?

 

[LuisDantas]

Come to think of it, since Syria (much like Iraq) is essentially built to be unstable (because its borders were chosen artificially in order to force religious and ethnic conflict), there is essentially no chance of military action to solve anything.

I'm appalled that Obama has ever seriously considered such a path.

A true solution can and should be pursued. But it most certainly won't take the form of military efforts, particularly when they take the coward and impersonal form of missile strikes. Darn lot of respect such an action might earn the USA...

No, it takes something else entirely to defuse the situation. It would be dangerous and risky and quite possibly fail, but it would be worth a try if for no other reason because it would be an useful stepping stone towards solving several largely similar situations worldwide.

If I had the power to propose it (which I don't, so I guess you may all breathe now), I would contact the UNO, the Arab League, the Muslim Brotherhood and religious representatives of the major groups present in Syria and (say) Israel, Iraq and Iran and ask for volunteers to take part in diplomatic missions to negotiate cease-fires, political division and rearrangements in more realistic and sustainable terms.

Appeal to the desire of Muslims of living in mutual respect and safety, protecting their own physical well-being and that of their families. Give those diverse people that are somewhat misleadingly called "Syrians" actual reasons to hope for better, safer, more constructive political decisions. Put trusted, respectable or at least influential people in the line, as Gandhi once did put himself, to show that you care, that you mean business, and that your goal is not a superficial and uncommited display of military superiority but rather a full commitment towards actual nation-building, towards attaining something that will actually be worth taking risks for. Heck, it might well end up creating a shot at true peace between Israel and its Arab neighboors.

It won't happen. But for all its risks, it sure seems to be by far the safest approach available at this time. And it most certainly looks a lot more honorable than whatever will end up happening (if anything).

The point is not to bomb people but the installations capable of launching chemical weapons. But If the defenders of those installations are killed in order to save far more other lives I can live with that.

Call me a pessimist if you will, but I see no chance whatsoever of that either working or being perceived as legitimate by the Syrians themselves.

And why should they? At the end of the day, it is still a foreign superpower launching explosives over their heads from a safe distance. Why would they tolerate or respect - let alone welcome - such a course of action? I sure would not if put in their place.




This was directed to Falvlun, but indulge my own answer if you will:

(...)

Let me ask you something. If a sniper were killing numerous random people would you have problem with taking him out?

No, I would not... if I made it a point of remaining in the area and making a serious effort to avoid other snipers from following after him.

If I had good reason to expect others to in fact follow his example and for whatever reason I could not or did not want to be truly involved in the situation, I would probably have to accept that I can't be both distant and decisive at the same time.

 

[esmith]

Well to be fair you don't qualify to be a Chicken-Hawk, since you actually served. I suppose you'd just be a Hawk?

What makes you think I would be a Hawk? Just because you put on the uniform doesn't necessarily mean you like the idea of being shot at. I always went under the philosophy that if you projected strength you usually didn't have to use it and when you made it quite clear that you backed up your words with that strength you normally didn't have to prove it.

 

[Falvlun]

The point is not to bomb people but the installations capable of launching chemical weapons. But If the defenders of those installations are killed in order to save far more other lives I can live with that./

Of course the point isn't to bomb civilians but it's pretty naive to think that we could carry out a missile strike without civilian casualties. Our drones don't have the best track record.
There is also the very real likelihood that military action by the US will further destablize the region making things worse for the civilian population

Let me ask you something. If a sniper were killing numerous random people would you have problem with taking him out?

Again if you think the situation in Syria can be considered analogous to such a simplistic scenario, then that is pretty naïve.

What if taking out the sniper makes three more take his place? What if we only think the sniper is the one shooting everyone and really its multiple different people? What if the people we are saving are just trying to kill the sniper so they can steal his gun so they can shoot us? What if us getting involved angers everyone in the village and they decide to start shooting at us in retaliation for meddling?

There are too many variables in Syria. And on top of that, history has not proven our interests in the middle east to turn out the way we hope.

 

[nazz]

Do you think it will?

What I have learned so far leads me to believe that it neither will nor will there be any other desirable consequence.

what leads you to believe that?

 

[LuisDantas]

what leads you to believe that?

Mainly, there is no reason for anyone in Syria to feel protected by the threat of missiles. Assad certainly will not. His opposers, many of whom are jihadists, are perhaps even less likely to welcome the missiles.

The bombing will end up being a reminder of how little control over their own destinies and even physical safety they all have. And that will serve no one's legitimate purposes. If anything, it will scare all of the many groups in Syria and motivate most towards higher levels of despair and violence.

In this respect, Syria is not terribly different from Iraq. Opposing the current ruler is all well and good, but not all ways of so doing are defensable.

And the proposed missile strike is a bit like being the neighbor of a couple having a violent discussion and deciding to pull out a shotgun when they are actually hurting each other. It may perhaps have a very short-term effect, but it will not lead to peace or trust. It will only make everyone feel that much edgier.

 

[nazz]

Of course the point isn't to bomb civilians but it's pretty naive to think that we could carry out a missile strike without civilian casualties. Our drones don't have the best track record.

I don't think you can compare those two things. Drones were going after terrorists in hiding in civilian areas. Or in some cases there was misidentification. What I think the President is suggesting is more like the precision bombing surgical strikes carried out in the Gulf Wars.

There is also the very real likelihood that military action by the US will further destablize the region making things worse for the civilian population

I'm not seeing that as an outcome. It could not get much more unstable.

Again if you think the situation in Syria can be considered analogous to such a simplistic scenario, then that is pretty naïve.

No, that is not my point. I am merely establishing a principle. That it is justifiable to kill someone who is killing many others.

What if taking out the sniper makes three more take his place? What if we only think the sniper is the one shooting everyone and really its multiple different people? What if the people we are saving are just trying to kill the sniper so they can steal his gun so they can shoot us? What if us getting involved angers everyone in the village and they decide to start shooting at us in retaliation for meddling?

The "sniper" in this case is simply the military installations.

 

[Aquitaine]

What makes you think I would be a Hawk? Just because you put on the uniform doesn't necessarily mean you like the idea of being shot at. I always went under the philosophy that if you projected strength you usually didn't have to use it and when you made it quite clear that you backed up your words with that strength you normally didn't have to prove it.

Hehe, well if you we're gung-ho about going into Syria (or any other pointless conflict for that matter) then you'd be a Hawk, not a Chicken-Hawk since you actually served when asked.

Of course, just being part of the military doesn't necessarily mean you're a Hawk.