Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Well, I would say no. When you go way back as far as World War I you can see the horrors of chemical warfare. For example, this from Wikipedia: "Mustard gas is not a particularly effective killing agent (though in high enough doses it is fatal) but can be used to harass and disable the enemy and pollute the battlefield. Delivered in artillery shells, mustard gas was heavier than air, and it settled to the ground as an oily liquid resembling sherry. Once in the soil, mustard gas remained active for several days, weeks, or even months, depending on the weather conditions. The skin of victims of mustard gas blistered, their eyes became very sore and they began to vomit. Mustard gas caused internal and external bleeding and attacked the bronchial tubes, stripping off the mucous membrane. This was extremely painful. Fatally injured victims sometimes took four or five weeks to die of mustard gas exposure. One nurse, Vera Brittain, wrote: "I wish those people who talk about going on with this war whatever it costs could see the soldiers suffering from mustard gas poisoning. Great mustard-coloured blisters, blind eyes, all sticky and stuck together, always fighting for breath, with voices a mere whisper, saying that their throats are closing and they know they will choke."
Plus, with a bomb or a shot, you can aim (admittedly you can also miss). But when it comes to chemical and biological warfare, the agent can drift with the wind and go anywhere the wind takes it. I think there's also a degree of belief that it's a slippery slope from chemical to biological, and biological agents are terribly uncontrollable when released.
it is a big mistake to think ethics/morality plays a big part in US' decision to bomb syria or not. it is geo-politics, it is about furthering the interests of US and its allies.
I think that's often true, Hermitwin, but I'm not convinced in this case. There is no political force within Syria that is going to be much better than the other in terms of what it does for the West. As one analyst put it yesterday -- from our perspective, they're all bad choices.
And, I might add, the US always talks about our own national interests; I don't recall any military action when we simply said it was for humanitarian purposes. Both issues are in the mix.
The last few posts reminded me of something I found interesting. My grandpa died of cancer when he was 63. Cancer caused by the job he had in the military. He worked for the navy and spent time on subs and stuff and part of his job was go on board ships where there were chemicals and other things. He also was sent more than once to inspect Bikini Atol. He actually had to testify at congress about what he experienced and what happened to him and the other men as a result. I just find it interesting that they poisoned and killed my grandpa and many other men by sending them into known toxic areas and yet are condemning someone else doing it. I'm sure it still happens, too. Obviously we had agent orange and other issues in the past, but no one ever gets anywhere with getting money from the US govt for poisoning their own people. Odd that no other country comes to bomb us for killing our own citizens. Anyhow, just something that crossed my mind today.
The american civil war was brutal. Many more deaths than from Sarin. But we didn't see England France or Canada bombing and invading us due to our civil war.
Jeffrey, I think you've made two comparisons that are not valid.
First, in the era of the Civil War, there was only one way to militarily get involved -- boots on the ground.
Second, does it matter if it was with bullets or gas? I think you need to look into the way people die in a gas attack. It's sort of like asking if you would rather die from cancer or if your heart just stops beating while you are sleeping. Both ways you're dead, but I KNOW you would choose the latter.
I agree. I mean in the *end* death is death. But who wouldn't choose to have a bomb dropped on their head or be shot versus dying a horrible, prolonged suffering death? (granted plenty of people suffer horrific injuries and don't die after bombs and gunshots too, but just saying in the case of death).
I was wondering yesterday, if we had similar discussions in the world when we advanced in weapons otherwise. Right now, it's chemical/biological/nuclear weapons that should stay off the table in war. Not kosher. But back in the day, when we started the changeover between swords and guns, or guns and tank, or tanks and aircraft...was the same type of thing at play? Or did those discussions not really exist because there weren't really "rules of what's fair in war" at the time? It seems that we (the US) pushed the rest of the world into developing those weapons because we had the upper hand in having (and rarely using) them when no one else did.
Sorry, just random thoughts, lol. If I had to choose a gas attack or a bomb for my family, I'd choose the bomb any day of the week.
Your random thoughts are interesting. Earlier today, I was thinking about whether or not the very presence of nuclear weapons, and their use at the end of WWII was why there has not been another "world war".
Yes vinlyn, some of my post was just for effect ie gesticulation (just learned that word earlier in the year). It is comparable in that Britain had nothing to do with the union and confederacy. Just like we have nothing to do with Syria. I know there is dependent origination, but RELATIVELY we have nothing to do with their conflict. I bet smoking cigarettes causes more death than Sarin in a given year but we don't have the SWAT team bust out on our citizens let alone other nations. The point is that people get harmed terribly regardless in samsara. But our choice is to follow the precepts and not kill people.
I know that I do not live in a world where I have to kill people. I can refuse. I am thankful for that. I'd rather die not supporting killing.
Mustard gas caused internal and external bleeding and attacked the bronchial tubes, stripping off the mucous membrane. This was extremely painful. Fatally injured victims sometimes took four or five weeks to die of mustard gas exposure.
Where I live we have a federal mustard gas disposal area outside of town...I always think what were they thinking?.. now it's hidden in the closet like so many skeletons.
Truth is I think while explosives and projectiles kill civilians too, nerve gas pretty much is guaranteed to inflict nightmarish death upon civilians. Notice that they didn't feel it necessary to evacuate completely due to shelling alone... Plus there's just something so inhuman about it.. its so sickening and insidious. It shows total disregard for human dignity. We all know, war is war, collateral damage happens, but this...
With the UK voting no today, it seems our "coalition" has gotten rather tiny.
Really surprised at that to be honest. I don't trust our politicians to vote in our or anyone else's interests any more; they are just point scoring against each other to try to win votes for the next election. As elected members you expect them to make the correct educated decisions whether they are popular with the public or not, not just to side with pubic opinion.
With the UK voting no today, it seems our "coalition" has gotten rather tiny.
Big surprise. I think the fact that Parliament was deceived over Iraq was the decisive factor.
I watched a bit of the debate on TV yesterday, it was a refreshing change to the dodgy political dealings prior to Iraq. And a refreshing change to the assumption that the UK always follows the US on these things.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Deliberate_Force Its understandable that Iraq is fresh in the minds of lawmakers. But lets not forget the Bosnian war, hundreds of thousands dead, mass rapes, ethnic cleansing... how many lives did NATO strikes save? Would we protest involvement here too? http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB53/ What about Rwanda? 1,000,000 dead because the intl. community did nothing but watch as genocide took place. And again in Darfur .... Scorched earth, genocide... What could we have done.
With the UK voting no today, it seems our "coalition" has gotten rather tiny.
Big surprise. I think the fact that Parliament was deceived over Iraq was the decisive factor.
I watched a bit of the debate on TV yesterday, it was a refreshing change to the dodgy political dealings prior to Iraq. And a refreshing change to the assumption that the UK always follows the US on these things.
I think we need to revisit the Treaty of Versailles and the Sykes-Picot Agreement and examine the influence they have had in the shaping of the Middle East.
@oceancaldara207 it's horrible that all those people died, and they are of course still suffering effects of those genocides. But at the same time, the western world is hoarding resources while millions of people die every year without them-without things that are cheap and easy to provide, but we hoard them as a society while others die. Yes, they are different things, but I am talking about the general disregard for human life and the loss of it. No matter how they die, it's tragic when someone else dies by the hands of another. We're just less direct about it so we throw up our hands while at the same time decrying genocide. It's really not much different. Dying off starvation because others are taking far more than their fair share seems like a sort of genocide to me.
With Rwanda, for example, even without our intervention they DID resolve the problem. And in the end perhaps they will be better for having done it on their own. They still struggle yes, but some of that is their own doing for decisions they have made as a country. But I do not believe they would automatically be better off had their been bombings from the US and its allies.
As horrible as all of it is to remember, I think we need to remember that it's not just the small scale stuff in life that is brought to its place by karma, by causes and conditions. The large scale stuff is the same way. As when the US and others through themselves into the mix, they generate more karma, more bad feelings, and start creating different causes and conditions within a country that has next to nothing to do with us (despite our interest in continuing to hoard the resources they and their neighbors have).
On a small scale, when people need help most of the time it is best to support them as best as we can while they do the work to get where they need to go on their own. I'm not convinced that we shouldn't be doing the same thing on a larger scale. I'm not convinced, even with the horrible things happening there, that it's up to us, or anyone else to swoop in and save them (and in the mean time, cause more problems than they, and we, already have) when perhaps we can find more ways to support them without bringing more destruction to their country.
Another problem with NATO or US intervention is that they seem to be unable to resist using cluster bombs. Yes, NATO helped to suppress the violence in Bosnia, but the damage from using cluster bombs goes on for generations. For some reason countries that use them are unwilling to take responsibility for cleaning up afterwards. Leaving a war stricken and impoverished population at long term risk of injury or death and unable to go back to working on their land without an incredibly tedious and expensive clean up process. http://www.stopclustermunitions.org/the-problem/
For those interested in the moral ethics of intervention, read up on the United Nations Responsibility to Protect.
Will bombing Syria protect the civilians? Before anyone goes to war, wouldn't it make sense to ask the experts what would be the course of action that prevents the most suffering (it at all possible). Before the US went to war in Afghanistan the experts warned them that they would not be able to achieve anything with the military option. They went anyway, and of course increased the suffering beyond compare. To paraphrase @ThailandTom, they are a nation lead by psychopaths. I'm not using this word lightly. I really believe that if you start a war that your military experts consider to be unwinnable, knowing how horrific war is and that other people - not the politicians themselves - will be subjected to this horror, you must be lacking basic human moral values. If you think I'm wrong, then please explain.
@vinlyn, to answer your question about what makes a normal citizen, I'd say it is someone who give more value to life and justice than to power and money. Almost all US americans are normal citizens, but unfortunately, I believe that many of them are tricked into believing that killing people in wars serves protecting life and justice, where in many cases it really doesn't. Take the coup in Iran. Probably most US americans would believe that there was somehow a justification for replacing a democratic government with a dictator, because they cannot imagine that the US would do such a thing for money and power. If they would know about what "really" happened (in quotes, because we never know everything), then I'm sure they would strongly condemn this kind of action.
The world cannot simply stand by and allow these things to happen in Syria. Look at what has happened in past conflicts, adopting a position of neutrality only serves to strengthen the aggressor and punish the victim.
Negotiation should always be the first choice for resolution of conflict but when negotiation does not work where do you go next. No one at present is suggesting an all out war with Syria, at this stage the discussions are about air strikes to damage the Syrian infrastructure and to act as a deterrent against further attacks on civilians.
If initial military intervention is still unsuccessful then the remaining option is to overthrow the dictatorship and remove Assad from power. You cannot allow these people to continue as they are; countless killed, millions homeless and use of chemical weapons. All countries need responsible, representative and accountable institutions. Look at the difference between Mandela and Mugabe; Mandela understood democracy and stepped down from power after one term, Mugabe was a similar freedom fighter but became authoritarian and oppressive.
There are many who say that Syria should be left to sort their own problems out, why should we get involved? We should spend the money on our own nation instead of solving other people's problems. They don't care what happens beyond their own families, friends, occupations and own little world. That is a selfish opinion and is not the way the world works. However, due to previous experience of Iraq and Afghanistan, this is a popular opinion amongst the general public, they don't want to become embroiled in another war in the Middle East. But if the popular opinion is that we don't care and we should leave them to it, then those responsible for decision making need to go against public opinion to make the correct decisions, this hasn't happened and votes are based on political point-scoring, party voting rather than individual, to present the current UK government as weak.
War is a terrible thing, of course, and should not be entered in to lightly. In time, military intervention in Syria will almost certainly secure Security Council support because the evidence is there, unlike Iraq and the WMDs. The situation now in the UK with the government blocking military action rules out any involvement, no matter how limited. The principal of intervention should have been agreed but with the details to be decided separately, in conjunction with fellow nations and with UN authorization.
See the below chart for the UK vote. This was not a party political decision yet not a single Labour MP voted in favour. The Labour leader had clearly said that his party were to vote against intervention because they wanted to oppose the party in power. This is a disgrace, not proud to be British right now.
@Lee82 Everything you say makes sense and has a core of caring and concern. But I still don't think it needs to be All or Nothing when it comes to this Syria situation.
I'm all for having real concern and showing it by sending support in the form of food, water, medical supplies, temporary shelters, fuels, and yeah, even money. We can do so much to help the victims of this civil war without sending troops, weapons or killing anyone ourselves. Honestly, I feel that there's nothing wrong, immoral or unethical with drawing a line and setting limits on what we should feel 'obligated' to do. Especially since so many other countries are backing out and rescinding their UN agreements and promises to protect other nations from this kind of terror and killing.
Why are we (the U.S.) to be left standing all alone holding the sword? Been there, done that soooo many times.
I don't think, that just because some (alot) of people are against military involvement doesn't mean they don't care about the people there and how much they are suffering. This is a complex issue and I don't think it's really fair to simplify it by saying that people who aren't for military action are clearly against the people who are suffering. Are things truly improved and better in all the countries we did get involved with?
See the below chart for the UK vote. This was not a party political decision yet not a single Labour MP voted in favour. The Labour leader had clearly said that his party were to vote against intervention because they wanted to oppose the party in power. This is a disgrace, not proud to be British right now.
With Rwanda, for example, even without our intervention they DID resolve the problem. And in the end perhaps they will be better for having done it on their own.
you don't really feel that way do you? It was somewhere around 900,000 men women children, most innocent. Literally hell on earth. I wouldn't be able to sleep at night if I had the ability to stop it and did nothing.
what will destroying infrastructure do to improve the situation? And why would bombing refrain Assad from killing more civilians?
This is a civil war, and Assad has many supportors among the population. AFAIK the military experts say there is no military solution that has a chance of bringing peace. Moreover, the conflict is already an international one and could escalate into regional war, which means more suffering. Thirdly, if Assad is driven from power, who will take his place? Another dictator?
Before anyone starts a war (it seems absurd to say it, because it appears to be so obvious) we should check that it doesn't make things worse.
Following death of US soldiers in Somalia, the US and the rest of the world didn't want to get involved in conflict where troops were at risk. In Rwanda there was no commitment of troops for anything other than peacekeeping and then when the conflict escalated they were withdrawn. There were 800,000 people killed in 100 days in Rwanda and no nations would provide forces to step in and stop the troubles. It took the conflict in Bosnia for the world to learn to take sides and realise that neutrality was unacceptable. 400 military sites were blitzed from the air over a 4 month period leading to the withdrawal of Serb forces who were then compelled to negotiate. From this came the Responsibility to Protect and the legitimacy of military intervention. Now with Syria, history is repeating itself, the world needs to re-learn to take sides and do something about it.
I do.That doesn't mean I don't understand how many died or what horrible suffering that was and what problems they continue to experience because so many of the men in the Tutsi faction were killed. It just means that we cannot know that our intervention would have been the best option, especially as time goes on and we see what becomes of their nation. Yes, perhaps we could have intervened and not as many Tutsis would have died. But how many would then have died to do our actions versus the genocide? Would it really have been better? We don't know. Would that have been more desirable? Would raining hellfire from the skies really have made the situation in the country better, destroying hospitals and schools and other infrastructure when we "make mistakes" about what a building is, or who might be there?
Yes, it's horrible how many died. I'm not saying it's not. I'm just saying that just maybe them having stopped the genocide on their own will empower them. MAYBE in time, they will be better than they would have had we intervened. Maybe not. We'll never truly know the answer since we can't see the end results of both actions. But what good does it do to *assume* that if we had intervened, the results would have been better?
We often consider our involvement in WWII to be a slam-dunk success. But then people forget that while we were saving Europe from Hitler, we put our own citizens in camps because of their ethnicity. Even with that, excepting WWII, of all our military actions around the world, how many of them can we truly and completely say "Yes. Our involvement was hands-down the right thing to do, we improved the situation. The direction of the country now after we intervened is positive, the people are happy and improving, and they are glad we did what we did" ? Because I mostly see a whole lot of adverse attitudes towards the US because of our choice to constantly involve ourselves in the affairs of others.
But how many would then have died to do our actions versus the genocide? Would it really have been better? We don't know.
It would have saved hundreds if thousands. Actually most Tutsis were hacked to death with machetes, any minimal show of force by anyone would have prevented the whole thing... They could have at least used troops to channel refugees. Truth is, my whole life I've seen example after example of evil running rampant until it is stopped. Its just the way it is in this world. Self defence, deterrence save many many lives and prevent a multitude of acts of evil... Even though violent they are acts of compassion.
I don't think, honestly, that most of the acts the US chooses to involve themselves in, are "acts of compassion." WE think of them as acts of compassion, because we view it s the US (and allies) saving people who need saving. But I don't think we put our own citizens lives in danger in order to save others. It is mostly to protect the US. I wish they were wholly acts of compassion, but I just don't believe it. They are acts of self-preservation. The US commits plenty of evil acts themselves. We just prefer not to think about them and when we do, we find ways to justify them.There is just far more that goes into a "minimal show of force" than simply blowing up a couple of small buildings housing bad guys.
So, what if we go in. And we get rid of Assad. Then who takes over the country? The people fighting on the rebel side? From what I understand, they don't seem like a group we want running, or helping to establish a new way of running the country. I'm just not too keen on running in to help Al Quida-affiliated groups over throw someone they see as a bad guy. They see US as a bad guy, too. So, us bad guys are going to help those bad guys over throw another bad guy. That just doesn't seem like a good equation to me.
Because I mostly see a whole lot of adverse attitudes towards the US because of our choice to constantly involve ourselves in the affairs of others.
Well this is obvious, but it doesn't have to be this way. Had our use of force always been more judicious, you'd probably be agreeing with me right now. Idk karasti we all know the US has a checkered history of military intervention. We should be suspicious. But it shouldnt stop us from doing what's right if we have to. I still refuse to believe that you would have had us do nothing in Rwanda. Those women and children brutalized in that nightmare... They didn't ask for it any more than you did. It could have been stopped.
...Because I mostly see a whole lot of adverse attitudes towards the US because of our choice to constantly involve ourselves in the affairs of others.
Well, what I see is when we don't get involved in things there's "a whole lot of adverse attitudes towards the US", and when we do get involved in things there's "a whole lot of adverse attitudes towards the US".
So, what if we go in. And we get rid of Assad. Then who takes over the country? The people fighting on the rebel side? From what I understand, they don't seem like a group we want running, or helping to establish a new way of running the country. I'm just not too keen on running in to help Al Quida-affiliated groups over throw someone they see as a bad guy. They see US as a bad guy, too. So, us bad guys are going to help those bad guys over throw another bad guy. That just doesn't seem like a good equation to me.
Yeah there's where it gets complicated..conspiracy theories aside the FSA had pretty noble, non radical origins. Military defectors who refused to fire upon protestors of the totalitarian Assad regime. Basically it started as a protest movement. there have been Islamist factions splintering off, but by and large, i think its a society beginning to struggle for freedom...democracy.
I never said that if it were my call to make, I would have chose to do nothing. But we DID do pretty much nothing, and how that turns out still remains to be seen. There is no use trying to assume what would have been different if we had intervened, because we don't know. All we know is what actually happened, and *maybe* as a result they will be better off in the future than they would have had we attacked. Maybe not. As I said, time will continue to tell.
I hope for things to improve. If we can help, we should help. But I am not convinced that the only way to help is to drop bombs.
Basically it started as a protest movement. there have been Islamist factions splintering off, but by and large, i think its a society beginning to struggle for freedom...democracy.
I think there are all sorts of interests on the rebel side, I don't think there is any concensus about wanting democracy.
I think there's also a degree of belief that it's a slippery slope from chemical to biological, and biological agents are terribly uncontrollable when released.
I think there's also a degree of belief that it's a slippery slope from chemical to biological, and biological agents are terribly uncontrollable when released.
Didn't the US use chemical weapons in Vietnam?
Yes a couple of them; "Agent Orange" is the best/worst known one which sent troops home with all sorts of illnesses and cancers, (and left the VN civilians with the same as well as sky high birth defects) and recently they linked ischemic heart disease to exposure as well. My husband is one of those VN vets affected by it. Napalm is also a 'chemical' weapon, which (like Agent Orange) was not always used exactly as intended.
It's all in the spin and who's behind the wheel, as they say....
I know that the British army tested LSD as a possible weapon, but I am sure if you dropped a load of liquid LSD from a plane onto a troop they would be unable to move within 20 minutes as a drop on your finger is enough for a high dose, a whole splash would render you probably insane. Slightly better for the victims than agent orange and napalm don't you think
Comments
Plus, with a bomb or a shot, you can aim (admittedly you can also miss). But when it comes to chemical and biological warfare, the agent can drift with the wind and go anywhere the wind takes it. I think there's also a degree of belief that it's a slippery slope from chemical to biological, and biological agents are terribly uncontrollable when released.
plays a big part in US' decision to bomb syria or not.
it is geo-politics, it is about furthering the interests of US
and its allies.
And, I might add, the US always talks about our own national interests; I don't recall any military action when we simply said it was for humanitarian purposes. Both issues are in the mix.
evidence for Assad housing chemical agents 'not a slam dunk'. Slam dunk was what they said for the WMD in Saddam Husein days.
Anyhow, just something that crossed my mind today.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_military_casualties_of_war
There were over 1 million deaths in the civil war. Does it matter if it was with bullets or gas?
First, in the era of the Civil War, there was only one way to militarily get involved -- boots on the ground.
Second, does it matter if it was with bullets or gas? I think you need to look into the way people die in a gas attack. It's sort of like asking if you would rather die from cancer or if your heart just stops beating while you are sleeping. Both ways you're dead, but I KNOW you would choose the latter.
I was wondering yesterday, if we had similar discussions in the world when we advanced in weapons otherwise. Right now, it's chemical/biological/nuclear weapons that should stay off the table in war. Not kosher. But back in the day, when we started the changeover between swords and guns, or guns and tank, or tanks and aircraft...was the same type of thing at play? Or did those discussions not really exist because there weren't really "rules of what's fair in war" at the time? It seems that we (the US) pushed the rest of the world into developing those weapons because we had the upper hand in having (and rarely using) them when no one else did.
Sorry, just random thoughts, lol. If I had to choose a gas attack or a bomb for my family, I'd choose the bomb any day of the week.
I know that I do not live in a world where I have to kill people. I can refuse. I am thankful for that. I'd rather die not supporting killing.
Truth is I think while explosives and projectiles kill civilians too, nerve gas pretty much is guaranteed to inflict nightmarish death upon civilians. Notice that they didn't feel it necessary to evacuate completely due to shelling alone...
Plus there's just something so inhuman about it.. its so sickening and insidious. It shows total disregard for human dignity. We all know, war is war, collateral damage happens, but this...
Its understandable that Iraq is fresh in the minds of lawmakers. But lets not forget the Bosnian war, hundreds of thousands dead, mass rapes, ethnic cleansing... how many lives did NATO strikes save? Would we protest involvement here too?
http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB53/
What about Rwanda? 1,000,000 dead because the intl. community did nothing but watch as genocide took place.
And again in Darfur .... Scorched earth, genocide... What could we have done.
With Rwanda, for example, even without our intervention they DID resolve the problem. And in the end perhaps they will be better for having done it on their own. They still struggle yes, but some of that is their own doing for decisions they have made as a country. But I do not believe they would automatically be better off had their been bombings from the US and its allies.
As horrible as all of it is to remember, I think we need to remember that it's not just the small scale stuff in life that is brought to its place by karma, by causes and conditions. The large scale stuff is the same way. As when the US and others through themselves into the mix, they generate more karma, more bad feelings, and start creating different causes and conditions within a country that has next to nothing to do with us (despite our interest in continuing to hoard the resources they and their neighbors have).
On a small scale, when people need help most of the time it is best to support them as best as we can while they do the work to get where they need to go on their own. I'm not convinced that we shouldn't be doing the same thing on a larger scale. I'm not convinced, even with the horrible things happening there, that it's up to us, or anyone else to swoop in and save them (and in the mean time, cause more problems than they, and we, already have) when perhaps we can find more ways to support them without bringing more destruction to their country.
Yes, NATO helped to suppress the violence in Bosnia, but the damage from using cluster bombs goes on for generations.
For some reason countries that use them are unwilling to take responsibility for cleaning up afterwards. Leaving a war stricken and impoverished population at long term risk of injury or death and unable to go back to working on their land without an incredibly tedious and expensive clean up process.
http://www.stopclustermunitions.org/the-problem/
@vinlyn, to answer your question about what makes a normal citizen, I'd say it is someone who give more value to life and justice than to power and money. Almost all US americans are normal citizens, but unfortunately, I believe that many of them are tricked into believing that killing people in wars serves protecting life and justice, where in many cases it really doesn't. Take the coup in Iran. Probably most US americans would believe that there was somehow a justification for replacing a democratic government with a dictator, because they cannot imagine that the US would do such a thing for money and power. If they would know about what "really" happened (in quotes, because we never know everything), then I'm sure they would strongly condemn this kind of action.
The world cannot simply stand by and allow these things to happen in Syria. Look at what has happened in past conflicts, adopting a position of neutrality only serves to strengthen the aggressor and punish the victim.
Negotiation should always be the first choice for resolution of conflict but when negotiation does not work where do you go next. No one at present is suggesting an all out war with Syria, at this stage the discussions are about air strikes to damage the Syrian infrastructure and to act as a deterrent against further attacks on civilians.
If initial military intervention is still unsuccessful then the remaining option is to overthrow the dictatorship and remove Assad from power. You cannot allow these people to continue as they are; countless killed, millions homeless and use of chemical weapons. All countries need responsible, representative and accountable institutions. Look at the difference between Mandela and Mugabe; Mandela understood democracy and stepped down from power after one term, Mugabe was a similar freedom fighter but became authoritarian and oppressive.
There are many who say that Syria should be left to sort their own problems out, why should we get involved? We should spend the money on our own nation instead of solving other people's problems. They don't care what happens beyond their own families, friends, occupations and own little world. That is a selfish opinion and is not the way the world works. However, due to previous experience of Iraq and Afghanistan, this is a popular opinion amongst the general public, they don't want to become embroiled in another war in the Middle East. But if the popular opinion is that we don't care and we should leave them to it, then those responsible for decision making need to go against public opinion to make the correct decisions, this hasn't happened and votes are based on political point-scoring, party voting rather than individual, to present the current UK government as weak.
War is a terrible thing, of course, and should not be entered in to lightly. In time, military intervention in Syria will almost certainly secure Security Council support because the evidence is there, unlike Iraq and the WMDs. The situation now in the UK with the government blocking military action rules out any involvement, no matter how limited. The principal of intervention should have been agreed but with the details to be decided separately, in conjunction with fellow nations and with UN authorization.
I'm all for having real concern and showing it by sending support in the form of food, water, medical supplies, temporary shelters, fuels, and yeah, even money.
We can do so much to help the victims of this civil war without sending troops, weapons or killing anyone ourselves.
Honestly, I feel that there's nothing wrong, immoral or unethical with drawing a line and setting limits on what we should feel 'obligated' to do. Especially since so many other countries are backing out and rescinding their UN agreements and promises to protect other nations from this kind of terror and killing.
Why are we (the U.S.) to be left standing all alone holding the sword? Been there, done that soooo many times.
Are things truly improved and better in all the countries we did get involved with?
what will destroying infrastructure do to improve the situation? And why would bombing refrain Assad from killing more civilians?
This is a civil war, and Assad has many supportors among the population. AFAIK the military experts say there is no military solution that has a chance of bringing peace. Moreover, the conflict is already an international one and could escalate into regional war, which means more suffering. Thirdly, if Assad is driven from power, who will take his place? Another dictator?
Before anyone starts a war (it seems absurd to say it, because it appears to be so obvious) we should check that it doesn't make things worse.
Yes, it's horrible how many died. I'm not saying it's not. I'm just saying that just maybe them having stopped the genocide on their own will empower them. MAYBE in time, they will be better than they would have had we intervened. Maybe not. We'll never truly know the answer since we can't see the end results of both actions. But what good does it do to *assume* that if we had intervened, the results would have been better?
We often consider our involvement in WWII to be a slam-dunk success. But then people forget that while we were saving Europe from Hitler, we put our own citizens in camps because of their ethnicity. Even with that, excepting WWII, of all our military actions around the world, how many of them can we truly and completely say "Yes. Our involvement was hands-down the right thing to do, we improved the situation. The direction of the country now after we intervened is positive, the people are happy and improving, and they are glad we did what we did" ? Because I mostly see a whole lot of adverse attitudes towards the US because of our choice to constantly involve ourselves in the affairs of others.
Truth is, my whole life I've seen example after example of evil running rampant until it is stopped. Its just the way it is in this world. Self defence, deterrence save many many lives and prevent a multitude of acts of evil... Even though violent they are acts of compassion.
Idk karasti we all know the US has a checkered history of military intervention. We should be suspicious. But it shouldnt stop us from doing what's right if we have to.
I still refuse to believe that you would have had us do nothing in Rwanda. Those women and children brutalized in that nightmare... They didn't ask for it any more than you did. It could have been stopped.
I hope for things to improve. If we can help, we should help. But I am not convinced that the only way to help is to drop bombs.
Yes a couple of them; "Agent Orange" is the best/worst known one which sent troops home with all sorts of illnesses and cancers, (and left the VN civilians with the same as well as sky high birth defects) and recently they linked ischemic heart disease to exposure as well.
My husband is one of those VN vets affected by it. Napalm is also a 'chemical' weapon, which (like Agent Orange) was not always used exactly as intended.
It's all in the spin and who's behind the wheel, as they say....