Ontopic Syria

[Sarcasmo]

Holy f*cking stretch batman.

"We aren't allowed to punish Syria because Bob down at the shelter didn't eat dinner last night."


Yep, I sure stretched on that analogy.

 

[ZRH]

No. That's like saying a DA can't prosecute any more crimes if they are having marital problems at home. Having the ability to punitively strike Syria for mudering thousands of its own citizens has nothing to do with people being unemployed and/or hungry in Kentucky, or prisoners languishing in holding cells without speedy trial. The two things have nothing to do with each other.

The US has the ability to launch missiles or drop bombs on Syrian government installations. Right now. And it should do so. Most of the world has agreed that weapons of mass destruction are to be proactively discouraged, and their indiscriminate use punished. And yet we're sitting around coming up with reasons to not care. Why? This isn't about policing the world, it's about upholding long-established tenets regarding the preservation of humanity from genocide. We learned a lot about justice and breaking points in the first 50 years of the 20th century. Those lessons shouldn't be any less applicable today.

This.

Sending actual occupation troops is more iffy though. The net effect would probably be another finicky mess like Afghanistan.

 

[tre]

Patriotism and nationalism are what cause these sorts of problems in the first place. This isn't about Americans before Syrians. Nor should it be. It's about people. If the Syrian government is going to quell unrest with lethal chemicals, then it should be quelled with fire. For humanity's sake.

Anyone remember the last time you guys "had proof" of a country having chemical weapons? If you guys fuck this up again, you're gonna have a whole lot of enemies, and that will affect your citizens. It's not your job to police the world.

 

[Valve1138]

I blame the Jews.

 

[Domon]

If we find a facility that is making chemical weapons? Bomb the fuck out of it (assuming it wont cause those weapons to be released of course).

Short of that, i cant say anything with certainty.

 

[123]

"We aren't allowed to punish Syria because Bob down at the shelter didn't eat dinner last night."


Yep, I sure stretched on that analogy.

US is not the DA of the world.

 

[tre]

If we find a facility that is making chemical weapons? Bomb the fuck out of it (assuming it wont cause those weapons to be released of course).

Short of that, i cant say anything with certainty.

make sure you know who is running the fucking facility though.

 

[Sarcasmo]

I'm not entirely sure blowing up chemical stockpiles is such a fantastic idea, but I'm no physichemicalist.

 

[Domon]

make sure you know who is running the fucking facility though.

does it matter? Neither side should be running it.

 

[eileenbunny]

No. That's like saying a DA can't prosecute any more crimes if they are having marital problems at home. Having the ability to punitively strike Syria for mudering thousands of its own citizens has nothing to do with people being unemployed and/or hungry in Kentucky, or prisoners languishing in holding cells without speedy trial. The two things have nothing to do with each other.

The US has the ability to launch missiles or drop bombs on Syrian government installations. Right now. And it should do so. Most of the world has agreed that weapons of mass destruction are to be proactively discouraged, and their indiscriminate use punished. And yet we're sitting around coming up with reasons to not care. Why? This isn't about policing the world, it's about upholding long-established tenets regarding the preservation of humanity from genocide. We learned a lot about justice and breaking points in the first 50 years of the 20th century. Those lessons shouldn't be any less applicable today.

But they do have something to do with each other. We can choose to spend massive amounts of money and resources bombing another country or we can choose to feed starving children in Kentucky. I vote for feeding the starving children in Kentucky instead of using bombs to discourage people from using weapons of mass destruction. If the last bit of that sentence didn't sound bizarre to you, think hard about what it says. LETS USE BOMBS TO DISCOURAGE THE USE OF WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION. That's like using a baseball bat to discourage the use of a crowbar or hitting someone to discourage them from kicking someone.

And again I ask, why these people? Why now? What about the other people all over the world being oppressed or systematically murdered? We don't intervene in every situation of genocide. If we have these long-established tenets regarding preservation of humanity from genocide, why don't we do something in every case? It's not about morals, it's about money. I would put money on it. Feeding starving children in Kentucky doesn't benefit anyone except the starving children in Kentucky and who the hell cares about that when you can make millions selling bombs to the government?

 

[Sarcasmo]

US is not the DA of the world.

You're right. The problem is, who is? If people aren't allowed to stand up to genocide when they are able because of bureaucracy...well then welcome to a planet populated by a species that doesn't deserve it.

 

[Domon]

US is not the DA of the world.

Not my words, but an apt analysis of that statement in my opinion that i read a couple of days ago

>>>>> I'm talking no more military interventions in terms of human rights violations that has not much to do with the US itself.

That's a really narrow definition of America's national interests though. I'm not going to make the claim that every human rights violation poses a challenge to American national interests, but the violation of international norms on the use of non-conventional weapons certainly counts.

If a state is allowed to use the weapons without effective retaliation it sends two signals. First, it speaks to the weakness of the international community (America included) and secondly it demonstrates that there might not be universal moral revulsion to the use of non-conventional weapons.

The first point about weakness is obvious. It's in America's national interests to appear strong - which means that if America talks the talk, it must walk the walk. By that I mean if America insists on condemning chemical weapons and WMD, and if it insists on remaining party to the Convention on the use of Chemical Weapons, it must enforce its beliefs.

The second point relates a little more indirectly to America's national interests. By this I mean, if those who control chemical weapons stockpiles question the seriousness by which America and the international community take their use, it is entirely possible that they will be used again. It reminds me of story I read as a kid - If you give a mouse a cookie, he'll want some milk. The next time chemical weapons are used, American foreign assets or allies could be the target. Coupled with the perception of weakness from the first problem this poses a tremendous problem for America's national interests.

You see, it all comes down to the essence of realpolitik - survival. If America wants to continue to survive the international system it must continue to assert its power in defense of its broad national interests. Otherwise it will lose power and risk survival.

This is all very basic international relations theory. I really recommend that people read at least excerpts from Hans Morgenthau's Politics Among Nations or even something a touch more modern such as Shiping Tang's A Theory of Security for Our Time: Defensive Realism.

Either work, or the breadth of IR theory will demonstrate why America's national interests extend beyond its borders, which is why completely removing itself from humanitarian interventions, or interventions as a whole is just a terrible idea.

About the rest of your question though, what would happen? international laws and norms wouldn't be as effectively enforced as they are right now. Which means that even though they're enforced sporadically and inconsistently today, it would be worse in a world without American military assets to rely on.

Britain and France have a long and successful history of helping the cause, but neither state, or other NATO allies have the power to go it alone (or even together) without America in an armed conflict without seriously jeopardizing their own national interests. See, France and Britain don't just homeport their navies and armed forces waiting for the United States to say "Let's go get'em boys" - they're actively enforcing their own national interests elsewhere all the time. Meaning that any emergency intervention would either go unanswered or would require other states to make sacrifices that they might not be willing to make.

This is where America's assets come in handy. American military power is so damned strong that it can usually safeguard national interests and participate in emergency situations. Other states cannot do the same.

tl;dr - Policing the world happens to coincide with America's broad national interests for very good reasons. Withdrawing from it would be costly over time. Other states cannot pick up the slack as effectively, meaning that international norms and laws would be paper tigers not taken very seriously.

Some basic IR theory that everyone should read:

Hans Morgenthau, Politics Among Nations, 1948.

Hedley Bull, The Anarchical Society, 1977.

Kenneth Waltz, Man, the State and War, 1959.

Kenneth Waltz, Theory of International Politics, 1979.

And specifically some stuff on humanitarian interventions (though he and I ideologically disagree) anything by Fernando Teson will do.

 

[tre]

does it matter? Neither side should be running it.

of course it fucking matters who is running it. It shouldn't be there regardless, but you need to know who/what you're up against.

 

[tre]

Not my words, but an apt analysis of that statement in my opinion that i read a couple of days ago

The national interest of the United States is NOT more important than the interests of everyone else.

 

[eileenbunny]

I think we should step down from this position of dominance and let China take a stab at it for a while. Let someone else step into this role while we take care of our stuff at home. It's what everyone else does. Why can't we take a turn? We are being condemned the world over for even considering intervening any time we do. Let someone else foot the bill and do this. Sweden isn't worried about appearing weak on the national stage. Neither is Australia. Why should we be?

Also, I still think it's stupid to go to war to prevent violence.

 

[Domon]

of course it fucking matters who is running it. It shouldn't be there regardless, but you need to know who/what you're up against.

Incredibly simplified, its like this.

Two teenagers are fighting, theyre beating on eachother with their fists. This only hurts them. If you can stop either one of them from getting in a car, and trying to run the other one down, driving recklessly through a crowd to do so, its the right thing to do, no matter who "started it"

Conventional warfare is more like a fistfight, with less (note, not none) potential for civilian casualty. CW almost guarantees civ casualty

 

[tre]

Incredibly simplified, its like this.

Two teenagers are fighting, theyre beating on eachother with their fists. This only hurts them. If you can stop either one of them from getting in a car, and trying to run the other one down, driving recklessly through a crowd to do so, its the right thing to do, no matter who "started it"

Conventional warfare is more like a fistfight, with less (note, not none) potential for civilian casualty. CW almost guarantees civ casualty

it's more like you walking into a fight, not knowing who started what, and punching one of them in the face to end the fight.

 

[Sarcasmo]

But they do have something to do with each other. We can choose to spend massive amounts of money and resources bombing another country or we can choose to feed starving children in Kentucky. I vote for feeding the starving children in Kentucky instead of using bombs to discourage people from using weapons of mass destruction. If the last bit of that sentence didn't sound bizarre to you, think hard about what it says. LETS USE BOMBS TO DISCOURAGE THE USE OF WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION. That's like using a baseball bat to discourage the use of a crowbar or hitting someone to discourage them from kicking someone.

And again I ask, why these people? Why now? What about the other people all over the world being oppressed or systematically murdered? We don't intervene in every situation of genocide. If we have these long-established tenets regarding preservation of humanity from genocide, why don't we do something in every case? It's not about morals, it's about money. I would put money on it.

We feed hungry children in America every single day. There are not kids in this country, who, under the observation of any governmental or charitable entity, are starving to death. None. If they are, it is a deliberate and criminal act by someone else that will be prosecuted when discovered. We have actual laws in place to provide for the wellbeing of children.

But again, the two have nothing to do with one another. You don't put judicial issues on hold because of social issues. That's just...absurd.

And are you actually proposing that you can stop regimes that have brutally killed tens of thousands of their own citizens with anything other than violent retribution? Really? Show me one instance, historically or even just fucking logically, where tens of thousands of civilian corpses is indicative of anything BUT a lack of concern for diplomatic discourse. Sweet fuck.

 

[Sarcasmo]

The national interest of the United States is NOT more important than the interests of everyone else.

Is it in the global best interest to tolerate a political regime that may or may not have gassed its own people to death, and which has undeniably already slaughtered them "conventionally?"

 

[123]

You're right. The problem is, who is? If people aren't allowed to stand up to genocide when they are able because of bureaucracy...well then welcome to a planet populated by a species that doesn't deserve it.

If anyone, it should be everyone. And I'm pretty sure everyone, including Russia, will get behind a strike on the Syrian government if, and only if, it's is proven that the Syrian government were the ones using CW's.