Syrian Strike Vote

[Aquitaine]

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?

To a degree, yes. Which is why I voted "no" to dropping bombs and escalating the situation in Syria. For the record I was also against the interventions in Libya, along with the invasion and occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

[Aquitaine]

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?

Depends, depends on how justified the actual military action would be (which in recent times with the US has been 90% unjustified). Syria, Libya, Iraq for example? Nope.

You want a pointless military adventure overseas so you can shout "prowd2b'murican" at the top of your lungs? Then go sign up and risk your own damn life.

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.

Yeah but how many of these people are just teenagers brought-up on MSM scaremongering and fear tactics, with poor economic prospects in an economy which seems to require a degree for even the most average of jobs, and who've probably been told that they have "virtually no chance" of actually getting deployed to an active war zone?

Just because the military is now voluntary doesn't mean that people can't still be economically or socially coerced into joining.
However, I wouldn't mind if the military would actually stay within it's nation's borders, and not start pointless conflicts overseas. Right now the US seems to be the most militarily aggressive nation on the planet. Dying to directly protect your homeland is unfortunate but honourable, dying overseas in an illegal war is perhaps more tragic because the rest of the world will label you as an "invader" rather than "defender", and your death would have been for nothing.

 

[LuisDantas]

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

That is a dangerous assumption to make.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I think that Syria is in a difficult situation that we have not ignored. We have been doing what we can, and we should restrain ourselves from military action unless violence spills across borders. We do not need to make a show of strength. Other countries can make a show of strength. We just need to honor our treaties.

I think presidents start to trust military leaders during their presidencies. US Presidents tend to get hounded into trusting the military, not by the military but by everyone else. They learn deep distrust of the legislative branch and must constantly turn away lobbyists. The military is a unique kind of lobbyist. It always salutes, always is respectful; but its the one lobbyist a president cannot ignore.

 

[esmith]

Are Islamist rebels' more prevalent withing the groups opposed to Assad? From the following article it appears that all is not what some would have us believe.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/28/w...reate-dilemma-for-us.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

 

[Aquitaine]

Are Islamist rebels' more prevalent withing the groups opposed to Assad? From the following article it appears that all is not what some would have us believe.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/28/w...reate-dilemma-for-us.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Doesn't matter. Regardless, we should stay out of it, and frankly I'm glad my country at least has so far said "no" to this primitive warmongering from their head of Government.

At least for now anyways.

 

[LuisDantas]

Are Islamist rebels' more prevalent withing the groups opposed to Assad? From the following article it appears that all is not what some would have us believe.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/28/w...reate-dilemma-for-us.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Even if they are not, what kind of effect do you expect a missile strike to have?

IMO Obama might as well announce Islamists worldwide that he would very much like to make a target out of the USA instead of sending the missiles. It would amount to much the same thing, except for having less of a human and military cost.

 

[Revoltingest]

Even if they are not, what kind of effect do you expect a missile strike to have?
IMO Obama might as well announce Islamists worldwide that he would very much like to make a target out of the USA instead of sending the missiles.

This side effect of US military policy is too seldom mentioned. Many dismiss it by saying something along the lines of "They're violent & hateful towards us anyway, so it doesn't do any good to not attack them." I don't buy it. Let's try butting out for a while, & see how it goes.

 

[Awoon]

Mr. President: Come home and rebuild America. The family of the ME have been fighting for millennia, let them fight.

 

[Revoltingest]

Mr. President: Come home and rebuild America. The family of the ME have been fighting for millennia, let them fight.

We could use the money to fix up Toledo's beltway (I-475).

 

[Aquitaine]

This side effect of US military policy is too seldom mentioned. Many dismiss it by saying something along the lines of "They're violent & hateful towards us anyway, so it doesn't do any good to not attack them." I don't buy it. Let's try butting out for a while, & see how it goes.

Exactly. How many militant groups want to bomb, say, New Zealand for example? If you act like a bully then you'll make plenty of enemies. People seem to not realise that there is a distinction between having a strong national defence, and being an aggressive interventionist and imperial power.

 

[Falvlun]

We could use the money to fix up Toledo's beltway (I-475).

Actually, we likely couldn't, seeing as conservatives refuse to approve of any budgetary spending other than for the military.

 

[Revoltingest]

Actually, we likely couldn't, seeing as conservatives refuse to approve of any budgetary spending other than for the military.

Those conservatives often don't get their way.
I wouldn't want federal money used on I-475 either,
but given a choice of bombs or beltway, I'll pick the latter.

 

[Awoon]

We could use the money to fix up Toledo's beltway (I-475).

Yep and I-75 to Motown.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yep and I-75 to Motown.

I avoid that route, so it can revert to gravel.
US-23 is more important to me.

 

[nazz]

To a degree, yes. Which is why I voted "no" to dropping bombs and escalating the situation in Syria. For the record I was also against the interventions in Libya, along with the invasion and occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan.

I marched in protests against the Vietnam War and BOTH Gulf Wars. I was opposed to continued occupation of Afghanistan. I find war in general to be unjustifiable on any grounds. This is different. My conscience does not allow me to stand idly by while others are mass murdered.

 

[metis]

You assume a lot about Assad, I think. What would prevent him from using chemical weapons even after we bombed him? If he's determined to resist the insurgency he'll use what weapons he has.

Personally, I'm no more inclined to intervene after a gas attack than I am after an artillery attack. Both kill indiscriminately. At least after a gas attack survivors have intact homes and neighborhoods to return to.

Assad's got his hands full just keeping the insurgents at bay. I don't think he's in a position to extend the war to other countries or ship materiel abroad.

Let me ask you a question: If the case for war is so clear cut, why are the UN and NATO not on board? Why are only the US and France rattling sabres?
If all you have is a hammer every problem looks like a nail. The US is enamored of its mighty military and is itching to show it off and watch the world quake in fear.

You really never answered my questions except to put forth a vague generality, so let me repeat them, and then I'll deal with your latest:

"Let me ask you a few questions? If we do nothing, is there any point as Assad undoubtedly uses more chemical weapons where you would be inclined to intervene? How about if he uses them against some neighboring countries? What about if he begins to equip various terrorist groups internationally? What about if they were to be used against your fellow Hindus? The intelligence report that was recently declassified says that Assad literally has tons of sarin, so is there any point whereas you would say "Enough!" and decide maybe it's necessary to downgrade his ability to kill more?"

 

[metis]

Do you think that it will be helpful to send a missile attack to the area? In which way?

Mainly to take out most of their aircraft, which will undoubtedly take more than one strike. Also, their main radar is not mobile. Remember, Assad is in a civil war, so any weakening of his military is very much a threat to his own security, and this is a message he will understand.

I just don't see how one earns respect or cooperation by causing serious destruction from afar.

The unfortunate reality is that if one studies Middle Eastern history "respect" often has been spread by the sword-- it's a tough area that operates under its own standards. Unfortunately, this is the only message that some leaders understand.

As a Jew, we abhor war, but sometimes you just have to do what you hate to do, and this is one of those times. To repeat, the M.E. is not an area for wimps.

There are conceivable ways of doing a positive influence in Syria. But the sad reality is that they are not being considered, mostly because they involve real, significant risks and sacrifices.

What specifically are your recommendations? What supposedly hasn't been considered?

 

[Draka]

The US doesn't seem to have the best track record when dealing with other countries civil wars. Just saying. Since when were we crowned "World Cop"?

 

[LuisDantas]

What specifically are your recommendations? What supposedly hasn't been considered?

See post #74 in this same thread.