Syria's Assad used chemical weapons on his own people

That's a lot of text for: do nothing. Because the possible consequences are, or rather, could be, much more severe than the current situation.

Fine, that's a perfectly reasonable position. I hope you're not that convinced of your own position that you can't understand why other people think something should be done, regardless of all those possible outcomes you mention?

There's no one suggesting things are easy, btw. Not even the US government with their supposed intentions to take over the middle east. (Didn't Rumsfeld say he didn't agree with the intervention in Syria, btw?...)

I understand why people want something done, I'm concerned that way people want things done will not resolve the situation, and there is a very good chance concerning our recent interventionist track record that it will worsen the situation. I understand that position, but I certainly don't agree with it.

You are trivializing my position though. If knowing what is at stake before acting, preparing for what happens after acting, and making sure all other possibilities are exhausted is equivalent to "do nothing", then yes, I am in favor of doing nothing. I didn't completely rule out military intervention btw.

Well that "trivialising" makes the discussion a bit more straightforward. And in the end, the actual decision is always much more simple than all arguments behind it.

Also, that trivialising could be argued to go both ways. Somehow in discussions like these, the other position always tends to be trivialised. Or, appears to be trivialised. Likewise for the current governments position. Because in the end, all the suggested intentions and secret agenda's mentioned in this thread aren't more than trivialisations of the actual arguments that may have been used.

Personally, I feel there's always a huge number of people criticising those who need to make decisions (or trivialising the arguments behind those decisions), but if those people were in the same spot and had to make the decisions, more often than not the decisions will be very similar to what has already been decided. Perhaps the rationalisation will be worded differently. But as already said in this thread, that's mostly political rhetoric anyways.

This situation's like:

Witnessing a guy who wants to kill you's children getting beaten to death into a bloody pulp by their family out of pure lunacy. You have the power to save the children, but you'll also be putting your health at risk (although you're 90% sure youll be safe) as well and possibly making them punish their young ones even more because you got involved. But then, again, all you know at the given moment is what is being done is wrong against humanity and standing by seems like a crime and hurts humanity as a whole. By the very nature of intervening, you'll also be demonstrating hero-ism--as obnoxious as it may be to the rest of the families, and will probably have to "take the kids in" and send them off to CPS, go to trial, whatever.

Do you listen to the what-ifs, what will happen after xyz, the results (will more families start beating their kids in front of you as a response?), your image, your good standing around the associated families you are friends with, what the family and their other friends will think of you or do just act upon the matter here and now because you see something evil and know you can help stop it?

I know, i know, that's ridiculously dramatic and not 100% accurate of a metaphor... just some food for thought..

im also not saying we shouldnt be weighing these options and just act now, like that.. im just demonstrating how much of a mind fuck the current situation is.. Obama's probably getting nice and drunk right now and doing some soul searching lol

  On 8/30/2013 at 6:29 PM, goDel said:

Well that "trivialising" makes the discussion a bit more straightforward. And in the end, the actual decision is always much more simple than all arguments behind it.

 

Also, that trivialising could be argued to go both ways. Somehow in discussions like these, the other position always tends to be trivialised. Or, appears to be trivialised. Likewise for the current governments position. Because in the end, all the suggested intentions and secret agenda's mentioned in this thread aren't more than trivialisations of the actual arguments that may have been used.

 

Personally, I feel there's always a huge number of people criticising those who need to make decisions (or trivialising the arguments behind those decisions), but if those people were in the same spot and had to make the decisions, more often than not the decisions will be very similar to what has already been decided. Perhaps the rationalisation will be worded differently. But as already said in this thread, that's mostly political rhetoric anyways.

It doesn't make it more straightforward. It waters down the actual context in which the decisions are made.

How am I trivializing the other position? I am familiar with how realpolitik works; states act in their own interests above all others. It is an amoral course of determining these things. Period. Those interests are very rarely out of the goodness of their hearts to encourage regional stability. So why Syria? Why not Iraq in the 80s? Why not most nations in Central and Southeast Africa? Because the returns on our exercise of power are greatly diminished. We can use resources in Syria, we can destabilize Iran by destabilizing Syria, we can establish military bases to expand our influence in Syria. Do you actually dispute that this is not a motivation of potential intervention? This isn't conspiracy, it's Political Science 101.

Now even taking a hawkish position, intervention now in Syria seems to be very risky, because of all the reasons I previously mentioned. Do we know how many resources will need to be allocated not only for the initial front, but later occupation and infrastructural development? How much will this cost the states, and are the returns worth it? Ok, so we just send cruise missiles into Syria to teach them not to use chemical weapons. What are the returns on that? Syria stops using chemical weapons, or continues to use chemical weapons and military escalation is necessary. Even if the chemical weapons stop, the civil war continues unabated.

So to cut to the chase: to assume that the decision makers are by default making the most rational and pragmatic decisions simply by virtue of them being in positions to make decisions is a ridiculous position to take. Decision makers are responsible for two of the most destructive wars in human history. They assumed the returns were worth the risk, and didn't take the time to calculate intelligence and alliances between the different states. That's a rather large example, but since everyone else is tossing them out I might as well join the fray.

Nations intervening towards their own economic or political goals/interests is not a secret conspiracy. I don't have a problem with actions. I have a problem with stupid actions.

Trivialising is often close to generalising, don't you think? Realpolitik in itself is a generalisation. It waters down the actual context in which decisions are made, like you say.

Thing with stupid actions is that actions in situations like these are never perfect, so there will always be some consequences. It's always way more easy to defend the decision which wasn't made, simply because it's consequences will never be actualised. So any actions are stupid. Exactly like people calling Obama stupid for having done nothing all this time.

Also notice how this decision (which still isn't made btw so we actually don't know whether it'll be a stupid action... but lets just assume it already has been made, so people can stomp their feet) has a context on it's own. For a long time, Obama's actions have been close to your current position. But somewhere down the line he made that red line remark about using chemical weapons. Why did he make that remark? Was it stupid? Was the intention actually right? Perhaps if we knew the actual context we would understand why he made that remark, and why he is in a position where he simply needs to do something (whether he wants to or not).

I'm not trying to make previous decisions right, or anything. It's just that the arguments against previous decisions often are based trivialisations of the arguments behind those decisions. Which was a generalisation on my side which wasn't specifically aimed at you. It is just a general observation.

My efforts to be sincere and intelligent are exhausted.

So here's my question: why must our dystopian reality be so lame? When do we get Gundams and mechas and hovercars and universal mass transit and shit? When do we get mixed race starship admirals commanding fleets of space battlestations and weaning formal uniforms?

  On 8/30/2013 at 7:50 PM, joshuatx said:

My efforts to be sincere and intelligent are exhausted.

So here's my question: why must our dystopian reality be so lame? When do we get Gundams and mechas and hovercars and universal mass transit and shit? When do we get mixed race starship admirals commanding fleets of space battlestations and weaning formal uniforms?

That is a good question.

Shit, Robert Zemeckis forecasted hoverboards and flying cars to become transportation two years from now. The powers that be are better at squandering than investing. It's apparent they care less about scientific and technological progress for humankind and more about control and self-gratification.

  On 8/30/2013 at 7:59 PM, ambermonk said:

 

  On 8/30/2013 at 7:50 PM, joshuatx said:

My efforts to be sincere and intelligent are exhausted.

So here's my question: why must our dystopian reality be so lame? When do we get Gundams and mechas and hovercars and universal mass transit and shit? When do we get mixed race starship admirals commanding fleets of space battlestations and weaning formal uniforms?

That is a good question.

 

Shit, Robert Zemeckis forecasted hoverboards and flying cars to become transportation two years from now. The powers that be are better at squandering than investing. It's apparent they care less about scientific and technological progress for humankind and more about control and self-gratification.

 

I don't even think its just the powers that be.

I read a pretty interesting editorial a little while ago called "On Bullshit Jobs", and the general idea was that it is the majority of everyday Joes who would rather prefer to work more hours to afford more and better quality distractions (TVs, BluRay players, PS4, etc.) than too work less hours and have less consumable entertainment.

Herbert Marceuse's One Dimensional Man is a great expose on how the bulk of labor may have willingly committed themselves to slavery by demanding that their labor be valued against what entertainment based consumables they can purchase. It's a little more complicated than that but I'd highly urge you to check it out.

goDel: don't get hung up on the word "stupid". perhaps that's too harsh. Let's say rushed, or ill-advised.

What the USA could do is say to Israel. "Hey Israel, get out of Syria. We're getting out too." Then they could take their spies and terrorist trainers out of there. Then Assad could kill all the USA/France/England trained terrorists. Then Syria could be peaceful and stable, with the majority living well again. Yes, Assad is a tyrant. Please tell me when in history has Syria not been ruled by a tyrant. And this tyrant is the best tyrant for this country. There isn't a more suitable person for reconstructing this country. But in that case, Israel wouldn't be satisfied for many reasons. What would happen is that another country like France or England or even Germany or Argentina would start to get more powerful etc and then start to do the exact same thing as the USA does. It's a religious imperative for Israel to become Greater Israel. It's one of the fundamental points of Judaism for this huge country to be created. George W. Bush type of Christians also believe this. Iraq, Sudan, Egypt, Syria,etc are all marked to become a new country that is Greater Israel. The same as the land was taken from the Palestinians the land will be taken from these other countries. The choice is to oppose Greater Israel or help it come about. It's hard to want to support it, when what we hear is lies about chemical weapons and Assad. I think that Israel has underestimated people's natural bloodthirst, in the way that if Israel asked the West to obliterate most of the middle east in order to create a giant Jewish state, I think we'd be happy to do it if we benefited from it. In England we hate our former Prime Minister Tony Blair for "lying about the war". England hates being told lies. If Blair had said "let's do Iraq and steal their resources then share them with our people to give them a better life" Blair would be loved today. So if Israel stops lying via its proxy nations and starts to appeal to people's selfishness then it will get a lot more support for these wars.

  On 8/31/2013 at 5:45 AM, chunky said:

If Blair had said "let's do Iraq and steal their resources then share them with our people to give them a better life" Blair would be loved today. So if Israel stops lying via its proxy nations and starts to appeal to people's selfishness then it will get a lot more support for these wars.

lol, you're delusional, people do have consciences (however atrophied), which is why politicians always lie instead of casting things in terms of naked self-interest. We like to think of ourselves as ethical people, even if our actions are anything but.

http://www.timesofisrael.com/perfidious-albion-hands-murderous-assad-a-spectacular-victory/

"ignoring the empty rhetoric of the craven West."

Hmm. It's so dumb for getting angry at people for seeing through a lie. Be honest. Then we can do a deal. If you want a war you can pay us to fight. We're not borrowing money from you to fight a war for you. You have to pay us. Stop the multiculti bullshit and propaganda on the news and dramas as well. And stop fucking up our schools on purpose to make our children stupid so they can't see through your country's scams.

personally i just don't even know what to think now. we heard from those on the left, many of whom are now running things, that iraq was all about oil, and under the pretense of lies about wmd, which the accused total moron bush somehow fooled plenty of the ivy league democrats who are much smarter than him into believing enough to vote to send people to fight a war. then after obama helps dethrone ghaddafi without even approaching congress and with libya just happening to be rich in oil, these kinds of accusations about libya being about oil weren't the kind of thing you'd hear 5 times a day at the watercooler. for some reason. but hey he came saw and ghaddafi died, allowing the muslim bros to take over. and look how well THAT turned out.

now, it was at least actually on the table and seemed to be in motion that our great leader was actually going to bomb syria, again without approaching congress, even though his own VP at one point said such a thing would be an impeachable offense (of the previous admin). i just don't know. how is it that so many of the people out and about in this country who were parroting the lines that were sent down from above about bush, oil, iraq, al qaeda being a made-up thing, all that, now they are quiet about this and some are even in support of taking action even without the approval of congress OR the UN, which supposedly was such an important thing to have just ~10 yrs ago? how does this guy get away with stuff that made the previous guy the great satan, AND get praise for it?

and how about those allegations or speculations or rumblings you can read about how some of these rebels who we may have already gave weapons to through benghazi (which may or may not have resulted in the attack there, if true) may actually be part of or connected to al qaeda (which doesn't exist)? imagine how much shit bush would've got over that. even just the idea or possibility of it would have been enough to paint him as somehow, impossibly, worse than the great satan he already was for taking out saddam (a guy who also liked to gas his own people). nobody would have thought that it would have been possible to fuck up our relations with the middle-east even more than they were when this guy took office, and yet, i have to say, it seems as if he found a way. the constant drone strikes probably didn't help. but hey, nobel peace prizes don't earn themselves.

Because the oil that was in the ground in Libya mainly went to Europe (France..) instead of the US. So the Libya intervention from the US point of view, wasn't necessarily about oil.

also, the Libya situation was a bit different. The Libyan army was at the point of attacking some rebel backed city, so besides the oil argument, there was also a sense of humanitarian urgency. Urgent enough to require fast decisions. Believe it or not...

segue into

http://www.npr.org/2013/08/29/216858049/why-syria-is-more-complicated-than-libya

and

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=217511144

isn't it more than a coincidence though that any time we need to intervene for 'humanitarian' reasons it happens to be exactly one of the countries that was laid out as needing to be invaded/controlled/dominated in PNAC and by what General Wesley Clarke overhead? I mean it just feels like people would rather ignore that and believe/take at face value what the administration is saying.

  On 9/1/2013 at 12:58 AM, John Ehrlichman said:

isn't it more than a coincidence though that any time we need to intervene for 'humanitarian' reasons it happens to be exactly one of the countries that was laid out as needing to be invaded/controlled/dominated in PNAC and by what General Wesley Clarke overhead? I mean it just feels like people would rather ignore that and believe/take at face value what the administration is saying.

no, that's purely conspiratorial theory. why don't you lay off your leader's decisions? they have the information, you don't. how dare you criticize?

it's like, the U.S. is the cops, and Syria is a wife beater. Wouldn't you want the police to stop a wife beater? Get with the program.

The people that act regardless of information are the people that get shit done. Stop hating and get with the program.

its also shocking to me that today people are so relieved that 'Obama is doing the right thing' by putting it up to a vote in congress, but does anyone realize that for a few days the rhetoric included clear cut blanket determination to

A) defy the UN if that became a problem at some point

B) go at it unilaterally, which is exactly what John Kerry criticized Bush for in the 2004 elections (even though Bush HAD the UK also)
C) 'secure' the chemical weapons, which would automatically mean some kind of indefinite occupation

I didn't even think Obama was capable of going that far, but he is and this vote in front of congress seems almost done out of shame to save face rather than doing the right thing. I'm not very optimistic it's going to be voted down either.

its almost comical to think of how many real serious events occur that could use humanitarian intervention of some kind that the US doesn't seem to care too much about. It makes me wonder how much relief and in what form we sent to the Haiti after the earthquakes, or Japan after the Tsunami.

why is pnac generated stuff supposed to be more influential than constitution for example ? what's the idea behind the assumption that governments are following its principles more/less than they follow others' ?

  On 8/31/2013 at 5:59 PM, goDel said:

Because the oil that was in the ground in Libya mainly went to Europe (France..) instead of the US. So the Libya intervention from the US point of view, wasn't necessarily about oil.

 

also, the Libya situation was a bit different. The Libyan army was at the point of attacking some rebel backed city, so besides the oil argument, there was also a sense of humanitarian urgency. Urgent enough to require fast decisions. Believe it or not...

where did the oil from iraq go? and there were talks about a humanitarian side to the iraq thing too. the guy had killed his own people before, and there were plenty of messed up things going on inside that country.

  On 9/1/2013 at 1:25 AM, MisterE said:

 

  On 8/31/2013 at 5:59 PM, goDel said:

Because the oil that was in the ground in Libya mainly went to Europe (France..) instead of the US. So the Libya intervention from the US point of view, wasn't necessarily about oil.

 

also, the Libya situation was a bit different. The Libyan army was at the point of attacking some rebel backed city, so besides the oil argument, there was also a sense of humanitarian urgency. Urgent enough to require fast decisions. Believe it or not...

where did the oil from iraq go? and there were talks about a humanitarian side to the iraq thing too. the guy had killed his own people before, and there were plenty of messed up things going on inside that country.

 

to BP and Chevron. As a means of paying of Iraq's war debt (read: the new form of reparations), the largest oil fields were sold off to western oil refiners/manufacturers.

edit: the fact that anyone is even trying to compare the two situations makes it clear that neither were ever about humanitarian instincts.

  On 9/1/2013 at 2:06 AM, SR4 said:

to BP and Chevron. As a means of paying of Iraq's war debt (read: the new form of reparations), the largest oil fields were sold off to western oil refiners/manufacturers.

i was under the impression that china and russia had bought the largest portion of those oil deals at auction, and that much of the war debt was paid by american tax payers.

  On 9/1/2013 at 2:06 AM, SR4 said:

edit: the fact that anyone is even trying to compare the two situations makes it clear that neither were ever about humanitarian instincts.

that's kind of what i was getting at. or at least that one was no more about humanitarian aid than the other (and i'll reassert that one doesn't seem to be any more or less about oil than the other). large swaths of the public would be in an (apparently feigned since it seems to depend on the party affiliation of the administration) outrage if there was an R next to the guy who's running the show's name, and there was actually talk about him taking action without congress or UN as there was here. even with congress being brought into the loop it'd still be another example of republican war crimes, and some of those accusations would be coming from some of the same people who now are rationalizing this. and i'm not necessarily suggesting that that describes anyone here but i think we all know it's a large portion of people in the US and apparently around the world. trying to talk about differences between benghazi/syria and iraq is just making excuses for the relative lack of criticism about this, when 10yrs ago lots of the anti war sentiment was coming solely from just a simple 'war is bad' 'peace and love, man' stance.

on the other hand there are still a lot of people sticking by that, who think we should just stay out of stuff altogether, even if it 'would help people'. and those types exist on either point of the spectrum. but i won't be expecting any rock bands to go make big time war is bad, lets impeach the president protest albums any time soon, or for any of the entertainment media types to turn on this, which i honestly think is where the majority get 'their opinions' from.

If you read the majority of those articles, ExxonMobile was selling their oil fields, i.e. they had control after the invasion and didn't feel the oil mining was worth the constant contribution. China is jumping on it as the highest bidder.

This is one of the major distinctions that people really need to understand, big business supports whatever flag brings them the most benefits at the time. Again, its realpolitik, the exercise of power. For economies, thats buy cheap, sell for more. So happens that the Chinese buyers are willing to pay bigger bucks for rights to the oil fields than Exxon would make selling it back to the West. But enough of that, we know how basic economics work.

Obama's administration is absolutely guilty of continuing Bush policies if not taking them to further extremes. You can go ahead and talk about the Democratic conspiracy all you want, but I might advise that if you are honestly against these policies and not just against the party in office carrying them out, you might want to get more involved. Fuck knows, there are enough left leaning people that have been ignored on this stupid shit for Bush and Obama admins.

this might also provide another perspective on whats going on or what went on with Iraqi oil:

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/03/was-the-iraq-war-to-get-oil-or-to-keep-it-off-the-market.html

long story short: oil is a valuable resource, but china's biting, what the US really wants is permenant bases around Iraq, Bahrain and the Hormuz Strait.