A question for my President...
- Thread starter Larry Gude
- Start date
ZARA
Registered User
Railroad
Routinely Derailed
We sit before the TV and in courtrooms and are shocked by the crimes of murder and manslaughter, and our shock and sadness and desire for justice come out in all kinds of ways. Ideology complicates and colors our view and adds a tint of hatred where there should be none. The knee-jerk reaction motivated by some foggy concept of righting the wrongs in the world, in which some would have us arrive like the Cavalry to intervene and punish, leads to huge sacrifices and costs in terms of resources and, more tragically, human lives.
And that's putting a charitable, optimistic spin on things. The politicians with their ever-present avarice regarding image cheapens what could otherwise have been an almost justifiable and noble endeavor.
And that's putting a charitable, optimistic spin on things. The politicians with their ever-present avarice regarding image cheapens what could otherwise have been an almost justifiable and noble endeavor.
Tilted
..
I reject that premise - that the only (sufficient) reason people might have for choosing between other parties would be believing in the ideas propounded by one (or more) of them. There are many other reasons why someone might choose between other parties, for instance their respective behaviors and actions. I don't have to agree with the ideas of a victim in order to choose their side in a conflict with a bully. Essential humanity tells me to, under some circumstances, stand up for people that are being treated improperly by others.
So, I'd ask a different question: At what point do we intervene in the affairs of others, at risk and cost to ourselves, when we believe victimization is in play? At what point does it - improper, or unjustified, or abhorrent treatment - become unacceptable?
I'm not suggesting we're at that point with regard to Syria. I really don't have a strong sense either way, I just don't know enough detail about the situation. But it seems to me that making good decisions depends a great deal on asking the right questions. And to me the right question is: As humans, what kind of treatment of others - others that we may have little connection to and little need of - are we willing to accept and what kind of treatment do we feel compelled to step in to stop (as ongoing or as future potential)?
My general nature as regards strangers is to mind my own business, it's not my place to intervene - unwanted and uninvited - in the affairs of others. But, sitting in a restaurant or wandering around some other public place, there is some point at which I would inject myself into strangers' situations. I'm not sure I could articulate the criteria, it may be one of those 'I know it when I see it' things. But, for instance, I would not sit still in a restaurant if I saw a man punching the woman he was sitting with in the face. I don't know a thing about them. Their lives are, in almost all regards, none of my business. Injecting myself into their immediate situation may come at a cost to myself, it would surely carry some (likely largely unknown) risk. But, being a human and experiencing some basic level of generic empathy for other humans, I'd feel I had to step in and do something. Not because I agreed with the woman, not because I thought my own interests (other than that basic humanity) might be impacted by what was going on, not because the man and woman are something more than strangers to me, I'd (hopefully) step in because at some point that's what humans do - they stand up to bullies, to rapists, to murderers, to genocid-ers, to abusers. They stand up and say no. And not just no, not in my house, but also no, not in my community; and, yes, sometimes they even stand up and say no, not on my planet.
So, again, I'm not arguing that this is one of those times in Syria. I'm saying there are such times - at least, I'd be ashamed to be part of a society that didn't recognize that there are such times. We shouldn't pretend that, if we don't have interests in Syria and what's going on there doesn't affect us, and intervening would carry costs and risks, then that closes the book on whether we should intervene. It doesn't, at least not so long as we're human beings capable of empathizing with other human beings. We should acknowledge that there is some point at which we should step in and stand up to horrible people doing (or having done) horrible things, even if there's no other reason for us to do so - even if it isn't in furtherance of our tangible interests - and even if there's a cost. Then we can focus on answering the question that matters in this case, rather than the straw men (e.g. do we have an interest in choosing sides there?) that make a potentially tough decision easy to dismiss. And the question that matters is, as it has been at times in the past, at what point do humans step in to stop or punish the horrible treatment of other humans - strangers, yes, half way around the world, yes, but humans nonetheless. And having gotten a sense of an acceptable answer to that question we have to ask ourselves if we've reached that point in Syria - what has actually happened there and does it rise to the level at which we have an obligation to intervene - not because of our American-ity, but because of our humanity. I would hope that one of the qualities of the former, a distinguishing quality if that be the state of the world, would be that it largely reflected the latter.
ZARA
Registered User
Larry Gude
Strung Out
There is no premise in the statement. It asks a question; why?
Further, the question doesn't suppose a victim. It speaks of two sides that want to slit each others throats. Not a bully slitting the throat of the helpless.
In Iraq, 2003, there was a bad guy, Saddam, and the innocents; his brutalized and terrorized, if you were from the wrong group, subjects. That suits your premise of asking 'when?'; a clear bully and clear victims. So, that answers your question but, I do not advocate that being the gold standard, a bully and his victims. History is full of 'victims' who, were they stronger, would absolutely do to others what the bully was doing to them.
I used the above quote because it applies, precisely, to what is going on in Syria right now; two sides that want to kill one another and, further, a rather obvious balance of power. If there is a clear time to butt out, this is, clearly to me, one of those times.
The United States butted into a similar situation in 1917, choosing sides based on puffed up arguments that one side was clearly worse than the other and we unleashed the absolute vulgarity of Great Britain and France at Versailles, all of our noble intentions shredded and the seeds of a much greater conflict sown. We won the war for them. They acted like they won it themselves. The world would have been FAR better served had we allowed the three to pummel one another into a mutual peace.
We are counseled by our founders to be wary of foreign intervention and entangling alliances not to be 'isolationist' but, because they knew their world history and they knew human nature.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
So, then, make the argument that gassing some one to death is worse than blowing their head off with a projectile. That someones lungs exploding from concussion is acceptable but, burning those same lungs with a gas is not.
Whatever gassing is going on in Syria is minor compared to the 100,000 plus already killed in this war. There are concerns about the validity of who did what and under whose orders and it amounts to quibbling over, at this point, 1 death this unapproved way vs. 100 deaths the 'OK' way.
Was it OK to firebomb Tokyo and burn to death 100,000 men, women and children, all civilians, and not OK to nuke to death 80,000 at Hiroshima?
Was it not OK to gas people at Aushwitz and it was OK to fire bomb Dresden?
This is war;
And, if we're going to ask questions, what is better, 50,000 people in Syria gassed to death but, the war ends or is it 'better' that 100,000 have died and we are about to intervene in a fashion that guarantees it will go on?
Do you see this? War IS cruelty. Therefore, it is a mental sickness, in my view, to debate what method is crueler and not OK and what method is 'less' cruel and therefore acceptable in context of getting it the hell over with so ALL the cruelty stops.
It is stunningly immoral of the President of the United States of America to stand there and argue we need to stop a certain type of cruelty but, then, when we stop that type, we will step back and allow other types of cruelty.
That is, in my view, immoral. That is, in my view, evil.
ZARA
Registered User
Tilt,
While generally I agree with your line of reasoning at the macro level, I disagree at the micro level and this is why:
Our government's number one priority is and should ALL WAYS what is best for OUR Country and OUR People first, and foremost. Period.
Idealistically, yes, it would be great if we could soothe away and fix the world's ills. But realistically, until the country you are living in is fixed, how the hell can anyone expect to fix a country that does not want to be fixed?
There comes a point in every one's life, regardless of circumstance or nature, that they must stand up for themselves, band together and fight tooth and nail for what they believe is right. But they have to do it for themselves before anyone else can truly provide aid.
If these people are running and hiding, well, I'm sorry, this may sound cold, but they are allowing themselves to be victims.
These wars in the middle east have not stopped since when they started...when did they start? These people have been fighting for thousands of years... as cold as I sound...there comes a point when the Government, OUR Government, needs to pull back and focus on the well being of OUR Country.
Look at us...our Gov't spends money like there's no tomorrow on crap they don't need. They are unable to handle medicare/aid and SSN. They cut education and police force. They stampede across our Constitutional rights like they never existed.
They tax our pay, then tax our inheritance...as if it wasn't taxed to begin with...
They pay for stupid "medical" and "scientific" studies that have no real bearing on life...(Some one was actually paid to study cat urine and they learned it glows under a black light...)
We have drug lords and addicts and gangs that commit more crime on a daily basis than the cartels do...
Children can't even go to school without fear of someone kidnapping them.
We have how many people that are homeless for various reasons..some self induced, some not...
Unemployed out the wazoo...job cuts, hours cut at jobs...
The list is insane.
We need to focus on getting our Country out of the Red and back into the Black.
I am sorry for those people, but my number one concern is always for MY people first.
While generally I agree with your line of reasoning at the macro level, I disagree at the micro level and this is why:
Our government's number one priority is and should ALL WAYS what is best for OUR Country and OUR People first, and foremost. Period.
Idealistically, yes, it would be great if we could soothe away and fix the world's ills. But realistically, until the country you are living in is fixed, how the hell can anyone expect to fix a country that does not want to be fixed?
There comes a point in every one's life, regardless of circumstance or nature, that they must stand up for themselves, band together and fight tooth and nail for what they believe is right. But they have to do it for themselves before anyone else can truly provide aid.
If these people are running and hiding, well, I'm sorry, this may sound cold, but they are allowing themselves to be victims.
These wars in the middle east have not stopped since when they started...when did they start? These people have been fighting for thousands of years... as cold as I sound...there comes a point when the Government, OUR Government, needs to pull back and focus on the well being of OUR Country.
Look at us...our Gov't spends money like there's no tomorrow on crap they don't need. They are unable to handle medicare/aid and SSN. They cut education and police force. They stampede across our Constitutional rights like they never existed.
They tax our pay, then tax our inheritance...as if it wasn't taxed to begin with...
They pay for stupid "medical" and "scientific" studies that have no real bearing on life...(Some one was actually paid to study cat urine and they learned it glows under a black light...)
We have drug lords and addicts and gangs that commit more crime on a daily basis than the cartels do...
Children can't even go to school without fear of someone kidnapping them.
We have how many people that are homeless for various reasons..some self induced, some not...
Unemployed out the wazoo...job cuts, hours cut at jobs...
The list is insane.
We need to focus on getting our Country out of the Red and back into the Black.
I am sorry for those people, but my number one concern is always for MY people first.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
Larry Gude
Strung Out
When we are reasonably certain out intervention will makes things better. We have NOT made things better in Iraq or Afghanistan so, that alone makes an enormous case for butting out of Syria; we're not capable, it seems, of helping OR the nature of helping in these cases is problematic, meaning WE, our 'help' can not be helpful.
There is NO reason to believe that our intervention will do any good. Least of all for the US of A.
the problem, as I see it, this is now a rebellion in the sense of Star Wars ; The Empire vs Rebels ...... but a sectarian religious war
Assads Gov - Ba'ath Party
Alawite branch of Shia Islam
vs
Al Qaeda back Sunni Rebels ....
if you read Syria's History Sunni's have been scrapping with the Shi'as for Centuries
there is NO side better than the other ....... the both slaughter women, children, Prisoners, and random truck drivers on the side of the ROAD
the only time Sunni's and Shi'as stop killing each other is when the WEST aka The USofA gives them something to Rally about
they don't give s #### why should we .....
Rwanda we might have been able to do something about - although this was a Tribal Conflict - almost as brutal and dated as Islams internal conflict
Dafar - Moslems enslaving Christians / Africans ... sure someone could have steeped in [but would this raised the specter of West / Crusaders attacking Islam again]
Somalia - we see how that turned out
the problem Tilted my friend, these people [ in a group think setting ] have no desire or don't really understand 'democracy' or Freedom - they are programed by Islam to always choose Islam ... over freedom
maybe there was dirty politics involved in Iraq and A-stan Elections .. but these people choose the same leaders [types] that oppressed [what we in the west would consider oppressed] them in the past
and the Islamist only under a Mailed FIST ... POWER comes from the barrel of an AK - 47
....
Law One: You will obey orders without question.
Law Two: Punishment shall be swift.
Law Three: Mercy is for the weak.
Law Four: Terror will defeat reason.
Law Five: Your allegiance is to the clan.
Law Six: Justice can be dictated.
Law Seven: Any clansman may challenge for leadership of the clan.
Law Eight: There is only one penalty: Death.
Tilted
..
Sure there is - why on Earth must people who don't believe in what respective parties propound have to choose between them? That is not at all why we'd "choose between them".
We'd choose between them, if we decided we ought to, because of what one was doing (or did) to the other. Of course people sometimes choose between others even when they don't agree with any of the others in a particular regard, agreeing with people in a particular regard isn't the only possible reason why you might side with them.
That's right. But that may not be the situation in Syria, one side may more so be the bully while one side may more so be the victim. (I don't know the details on the ground so, as I suggested before, I can't say.) I'm suggesting that, to the extent we might decide we should do something in Syria, it would be because there were bullies doing horrible things to victims. The situation you're describing, which might argue for not intervening, may not be what the situation is. What's important is that we figure out what the situation is and make decisions based on that, not make decisions based on rhetorical questions or analogies that don't necessarily fit the actual situation.
In Iraq, 2003, there was a bad guy, Saddam, and the innocents; his brutalized and terrorized, if you were from the wrong group, subjects. That suits your premise of asking 'when?'; a clear bully and clear victims. So, that answers your question but, I do not advocate that being the gold standard, a bully and his victims. History is full of 'victims' who, were they stronger, would absolutely do to others what the bully was doing to them.
I used the above quote because it applies, precisely, to what is going on in Syria right now; two sides that want to kill one another and, further, a rather obvious balance of power. If there is a clear time to butt out, this is, clearly to me, one of those times.
The United States butted into a similar situation in 1917, choosing sides based on puffed up arguments that one side was clearly worse than the other and we unleashed the absolute vulgarity of Great Britain and France at Versailles, all of our noble intentions shredded and the seeds of a much greater conflict sown. We won the war for them. They acted like they won it themselves. The world would have been FAR better served had we allowed the three to pummel one another into a mutual peace.
We are counseled by our founders to be wary of foreign intervention and entangling alliances not to be 'isolationist' but, because they knew their world history and they knew human nature.
I'm not suggesting we should apply a bully / victim standard. I'm asking what the standard should be (to the extent there can be one, for practical purposes there probably can't - it's more a know it when you see it deal), I'm asking at what point should humans step into the affairs of others - e.g., what level of atrocity is enough. Again, I'm not arguing we're at that point in Syria. But the honest discussion isn't whether we have to step in because we have interests at stake. The honest question is, is what is happening there so bad - so heinous - that basic humanity requires us to do something to stop it if we reasonably can.
I'll leave a substantive discussion of what the Founders believed, and why, and how that translates to today for another time. But I'm not advocating doing something in Syria, I'm advocating asking the right - the honest - questions. We shouldn't dismiss the tough decision by pretending it has to be about our own interests or we shouldn't do it. If people are being brutalized, victimized in atrocious manners - if, e.g., we're talking about Jewish concentration camps - then as humans we should do something. If we don't, we're bad people ourselves. The concentration camp situation is an easy call, this situation is surely something short of that so it's probably a tougher call - it depends on things that I just don't know enough about - but it's still a call based on the level of atrocities. At some point humans step up and act, they defend the defenseless. I hope we can agree on that. And if we do, then that means we have to make decisions about where that point is - we can't just dismiss intervention because it isn't in our interests.
one bullet fried from an AK 47 kills one maybe 2 if you line them up ... .50 cal or 20 mm a few more possibly
One Saran Gas Shell could kill 100 or more and scar many more on top of that from partial exposure
this is why they are called Weapons of MASS Destruction
Honestly I care not, to get involved in a Sectarian Religious War ....
both sides will shoot at you for killing 'Moslems'
we really should just use Persistent VX Nerve GAS and depopulate the Middle East and be done with this crap ....
Tilted
..
I think that goes to how we intervene - what conviction do we have in figuring out and following through on what's necessary. Now, I'd agree, that when we've intervened we've generally not been willing to do it right or follow through.
When we do decide it's necessary to intervene in other parts of the world, we should do it with conviction - we should do it right, whatever that means. I'd concede that our general unwillingness to do that should weigh on our decisions to intervene to begin with.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
But, look at what you're saying. You're struggling over a whole bunch of what if's and maybe's. That may well be entirely appropriate if this was some sort of new event and if we lacked our recent history in the region of failure and making things worse. Much worse.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
So, then, let us look at our record;
Intervention in WWI. Outcome; WWII, a far bloodier conflict.
Intervention in WWII; Outcome; we made Europe safe from one mass murderer and made the world safe for a much greater mass murderer.
Korea
Vietnam
Gulf War 1
Gulf war II
Afghanistan
Every single time, we made things worse. :shrug: