- Joined
- Dec 6, 2011
- Messages
- 6,248
- Reaction score
- 2,439
- Location
- Upstate New York
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
I'm interested in who supported the intervention in one instance, but not the other. I'd consider that ideologically inconsistent, BTW.
Hindsight says that Iraq was definitely wrong. Foresight says that Syria is wrong. You help no one by bringing death, destruction, chaos, and mayhem to their Nation. Try telling that to a war hawk.
I'm interested in who supported the intervention in one instance, but not the other. I'd consider that ideologically inconsistent, BTW.
I'm interested in who supported the intervention in one instance, but not the other. I'd consider that ideologically inconsistent, BTW.
How's it ideologically inconsistent? I was opposed to invading Iraq because it was basically a manufactured crisis, Saddam had been tamed for years and was not a pressing threat, and it was forced on the US, the UK, and the world based on cherry-picked and unreliable information pushed by Neoconservative extremists.
I support responding to Assad's use of chemical weapons because it's a real, present, and ongoing threat, he provoked us to respond after we warned him not to, and the information seems to be vetted reliably from multiple sources.
I'm an interventionist when there's humanitarian issues at stake, the threat of not responding to aggression is worse than responding rationally to it, and there is a reasonable chance at achieving the objectives of an intervention. I'm convinced on the first two points, not sure one way or the other on the last point.
Feel free to press me on my stance.
Death, destruction, chaos and mayhem are already at their nation. We're helping potential victims (and the rebels) be safe from a chemical attack.
How's it ideologically inconsistent? I was opposed to invading Iraq because it was basically a manufactured crisis, Saddam had been tamed for years and was not a pressing threat, and it was forced on the US, the UK, and the world based on cherry-picked and unreliable information pushed by Neoconservative extremists.
I support responding to Assad's use of chemical weapons because it's a real, present, and ongoing threat, he provoked us to respond after we warned him not to, and the information seems to be vetted reliably from multiple sources.
I'm an interventionist when there's humanitarian issues at stake, the threat of not responding to aggression is worse than responding rationally to it, and there is a reasonable chance at achieving the objectives of an intervention. I'm convinced on the first two points, not sure one way or the other on the last point.
Feel free to press me on my stance.
I'm curious - have you advocated US intervention in any number of African states practicing genocide amongst their own peoples? How about in North Korea?
Why is Syria special in regard to humanitarian need?
I know that this is directed towards aberrant, but as I advocate intervention (in both cases) I think that I should respond as well.
If there's genocide anywhere I advocate at least some form of pressure or assistance required to end the genocide. North Korea is too close with China for me to advocate a direct military intervention, though.
Syria occupies a choke-point in the world economy, too important to be left to fascistic dictators. Our enemies in Tehran and our rivals in Moscow and Beijing all have played their cards in regards to Syria. There's always the chance for Hezbollah, or worse, al-Qaeda, to get their hands on Assad's stash of chemical weapons. And Syria, as opposed to many places in Africa, has the chance to transform into a viable democracy after the civil war.
I'm curious - have you advocated US intervention in any number of African states practicing genocide amongst their own peoples? How about in North Korea?
Why is Syria special in regard to humanitarian need?
Death, destruction, chaos and mayhem are already at their nation. We're helping potential victims (and the rebels) be safe from a chemical attack.
That would require actual work. This is just taking a stand and dropping bombs. America is good at that one....so who the hell elected us God then? We can't let it be left to fascistic dictators...as we turn America into a fascist state. We are not Syrian, we have not proper say in their government. End of story. Before running around playing god of the world, I think that we should take care of our own house.
I'm curious - have you advocated US intervention in any number of African states practicing genocide amongst their own peoples? How about in North Korea?
Why is Syria special in regard to humanitarian need?
I know that this is directed towards aberrant, but as I advocate intervention (in both cases) I think that I should respond as well.
If there's genocide anywhere I advocate at least some form of pressure or assistance required to end the genocide. North Korea is too close with China for me to advocate a direct military intervention, though.
Syria occupies a choke-point in the world economy, too important to be left to fascistic dictators. Our enemies in Tehran and our rivals in Moscow and Beijing all have played their cards in regards to Syria. There's always the chance for Hezbollah, or worse, al-Qaeda, to get their hands on Assad's stash of chemical weapons. And Syria, as opposed to many places in Africa, has the chance to transform into a viable democracy after the civil war.
Yes, I would support intervening as part of a multinational coalition in instances in Africa like Rwanda and Darfur. Unfortunately the world usually looks the other way when it comes to Africa.
North Korea? No. That violates the third point I made: a reasonable chance at achieving the objectives of an intervention. Even though their people are suffering, starting a war in North Korea would be reckless because of what they could do with their nukes, the risk to Seoul, and China's backing. I think it's China's responsibility to discipline its bratty child.
Why is Syria special in regard to humanitarian need? The number of deaths, displaced, and the prospect of a future where chemical weapons are used without restraint, and the fact that there is a reasonable chance of addressing this through intervention.
That would require actual work. This is just taking a stand and dropping bombs. America is good at that one.
I hope you're right about Syria - although, I do fail to understand how the US bombing of a few strategic facilities and weapons installations in Syria is going to bring an end to the civil war, leave alone bring a viable democracy.
It's taken a decade in Iraq, over $1 trillion in American currency, thousands of American lives, countless Iraqi lives, and even now Iraq has the most fragile of democracies and certainly lingering civil-war like tensions between factions. The Iraqi people, like Syrians, are well educated, intelligent, and generally sectarian in their outlook to government and governance, and still religious tensions spoil the mix for those who just want to survive and thrive. Clearly, Syria is far better poised to recover than Afghanistan ever will be, but still, I don't see any great improvement there for a couple of decades at best.
Are Americans prepared to own Syria for a couple of decades too?
How's it ideologically inconsistent? I was opposed to invading Iraq because it was basically a manufactured crisis, Saddam had been tamed for years and was not a pressing threat, and it was forced on the US, the UK, and the world based on cherry-picked and unreliable information pushed by Neoconservative extremists.
I support responding to Assad's use of chemical weapons because it's a real, present, and ongoing threat, he provoked us to respond after we warned him not to, and the information seems to be vetted reliably from multiple sources.
I'm an interventionist when there's humanitarian issues at stake, the threat of not responding to aggression is worse than responding rationally to it, and there is a reasonable chance at achieving the objectives of an intervention. I'm convinced on the first two points, not sure one way or the other on the last point.
Feel free to press me on my stance.
...so who the hell elected us God then? We can't let it be left to fascistic dictators...as we turn America into a fascist state. We are not Syrian, we have not proper say in their government. End of story. Before running around playing god of the world, I think that we should take care of our own house.
You want to know the truth? Both parties elected us God, or at least the sole superpower charged with maintaining world order. That's important.
We have a higher military budget than the next 10 countries combined. We don't need it, but neither party is willing to cut it back to a reasonable level, 'cause everyone loves being the strongest nation in the world.
But despite our enormous military, it wouldn't do us citizens a lick of good if a country decided to send a nuke our way. We have no missile defense and couldn't scramble a jet in time if we wanted to. We'd be dead, all we could hope for is to kill a bunch of them with us. So what good is our military? They'll say it's as a deterrent, to keep other countries from exerting their influence over parts of the world, and to deter our enemies from launching a war with us.
But the fact that we have such a huge military means that our allies don't need one themselves, nor do we want them to. That means that even if they wanted to step into to a conflict in their neighborhood, like Syria, that they wouldn't have the means to.
For better or worse, we have told the world not to arm themselves, because we've got it. Then a situation like Syria comes along and the whole country says we should stay out of it. But we refuse to cut back our military and make others pick up the slack, 'cause then we wouldn't be as powerful.
That's just a selfish, arrogant attitude. I'll abdicate our country's responsibility in these matters once we've give up some of our power, but then everyone will have to accept the risks of not always being the biggest kid on the playground.
You can't have it both ways.
I'm interested in who supported the intervention in one instance, but not the other. I'd consider that ideologically inconsistent, BTW.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?