The Red Line: Part Deux

[utvolpj]

Rep. Alan Grayson: Syria Intelligence Manipulated - Washington Whispers (usnews.com)

LG's favorite congressman experiences a rare bit of lucidity.

Saw him on pbs last night and thought he nailed the opinion of those against strikes

 

[PKT_VOL]

I would still not be in support of a "punishment" strike.

Without knowing what the goal of such a strike was I wouldn't support it.

I agree; but that is a separate issue in my mind.

 

[PKT_VOL]

Not with our military.

Joe Biden, of all people, said it best in his 2008 convention speech that the US should lead through the "power of it's example rather than the example of it's power".

If the US intervened via military force every time there was a humanitarian crisis somewhere in the world, we'd still have troops in Rwanda, The Sudan, North Korea, Iran, Kashmir, Tibet, Burma, and so on.

So the example we should set is to stand around while humanitarian atrocities occur when we have the capacity to prevent/stop them?

If a thug was beating the sh*t out of defenseless person, would you set the example for your child (who is watching) by not intervening?

 

[Burhead]

So the example we should set is to stand around while humanitarian atrocities occur when we have the capacity to prevent/stop them?

If a thug was beating the sh*t out of defenseless person, would you set the example for your child (who is watching) by not intervening?

I would take my kid, leave, and then call the police.

 

[BigPapaVol]

Not at all.

Your question asks whether we should strike based on what folks like China or Russia or the UN think, as opposed to what is in our interests.

BPV fell for it.

Can you read? I said I would tell China and Russia to get after it. They can have the craphole. How you construed that into the silliness about who dictates our national interests is baffling, but not surprising.

 

[BigPapaVol]

We have no moral obligation, human to human, to stop injustices and abuses of others when we can?

No.

 

[PKT_VOL]

I would take my kid, leave, and then call the police.

Sad. I hope that person doesn't perish or get critically injured while waiting for the police.

Also interesting that you say "call the police". We have been, for better or worse, the "world police". The UN was created for situations such as Syria. The fact that the UN passes treaties, condemning such acts and weapons, then doesn't have the backbone to follow through on their own moral codes, has made the US the de facto "world police".

We both agree it gets tiring always being the "world's police". But to be honest, the thought of the consequences and morality of not having some sort of "police" to stop humanitarian atrocities when they can, is perhaps more worrisome. As evidence by you professing that you would teach your child to stand by and watch someone continue to beat the sh*t out of a defenseless person (in the name of waiting for the police), I think it is disconcerting that we seemingly only care about our immediate self-interest (can be seen in most of the problems facing this country).

 

[PKT_VOL]

No.

Sad.

 

[TheDeeble]

We both agree it gets tiring always being the "world's police". But to be honest, the thought of the consequences and morality of not having some sort of "police" to stop humanitarian atrocities when they can, is perhaps more worrisome...................I think it is disconcerting that we seemingly only care about our immediate self-interest (can be seen in most of the problems facing this country).

10 years ago I believed many of the US interventions around the world were simply that. Acting as a humanitarians to stop atrocities.

Now, I'm really starting to doubt the US involvement in the middle east is due to humanitarian causes. I think it is just what disconcerts you. Has our military been over there the past 10 years due to humanitarian concerns or is oil and US interests the main cause under the guise of "humanitarian actions".

 

[PKT_VOL]

10 years ago I believed many of the US interventions around the world were simply that. Acting as a humanitarians to stop atrocities.

Now, I'm really starting to doubt the US involvement in the middle east is due to humanitarian causes. I think it is just what disconcerts you. Has our military been over there the past 10 years due to humanitarian concerns or is oil and US interests the main cause under the guise of "humanitarian actions".

It depends on what actions we are talking about. I am not necessarily referring to the ME. We could talk about Kosovo, Rwanda, Hitler, Pol Pot, etc.

I think there are many different facets to this situation. I there there are real reasons to oppose intervening in Syria. In fact, as it has been framed by the POTUS and the facts made public, I would probably side against it. However, comments made by some in this thread are disconcerting. I think the ethical case is there if it was executed correctly.

 

[MG1968]

So the example we should set is to stand around while humanitarian atrocities occur when we have the capacity to prevent/stop them?

If a thug was beating the sh*t out of defenseless person, would you set the example for your child (who is watching) by not intervening?

Yes, I would throw a punch at the thug that I knew would miss it's intended target and instead break the current victim's jaw.

That's exactly what Obama is proposing here.

 

[Weezer]

So the example we should set is to stand around while humanitarian atrocities occur when we have the capacity to prevent/stop them?

If a thug was beating the sh*t out of defenseless person, would you set the example for your child (who is watching) by not intervening?

If people are not willing to fight for themselves, then you do them no justice by intervening everytime you think they need help.

 

[TheDeeble]

It depends on what actions we are talking about. I am not necessarily referring to the ME. We could talk about Kosovo, Rwanda, Hitler, Pol Pot, etc.

I think there are many different facets to this situation. I there there are real reasons to oppose intervening in Syria. In fact, as it has been framed by the POTUS and the facts made public, I would probably side against it. However, comments made by some in this thread are disconcerting. I think the ethical case is there if it was executed correctly.

You'd hope that someone would come to your aid if in distress. Yet the US, and many other countries, have sat that out sometimes. But when it comes to the middle east, we're very involved.

If military action is taken in Syria, I have no doubt that the govt argument for it will be an "ethical obligation".

But I have to ask myself why two of the world superpowers are butting heads this hard over tiny little Syria. My guess is Russia has plans for that area regarding resources, pipelines, and influence. But so does the US.

 

[PKT_VOL]

Yes, I would throw a punch at the thug that I knew would miss it's intended target and instead break the current victim's jaw.

That's exactly what Obama is proposing here.

I'll direct you to my post above.

I think there are many different facets to this situation. I there there are real reasons to oppose intervening in Syria. In fact, as it has been framed by the POTUS and the facts made public, I would probably side against it. However, comments made by some in this thread are disconcerting. I think the ethical case is there if it was executed correctly.

 

[MG1968]

I'll direct you to my post above.

It's interesting that you, of all people, are leaning toward the US imposing its ethics onto another country.

 

[Obsessed]

It's interesting that you, of all people, are leaning toward the US imposing its ethics onto another country.

I've been following his posts as well and I also think the same as you about him. I wonder if someone hacked his account.

I know his philosophy "changes" as things change. But this is a 180.

 

[PKT_VOL]

If people are not willing to fight for themselves, then you do them no justice by intervening everytime you think they need help.

Are we even talking about the same thing?

Two armed sides fighting each other can continue to do so. That is their business. When you intentionally start slaughtering innocent civilians, especially with chemical weapons, that is genocide.

 

[PKT_VOL]

You'd hope that someone would come to your aid if in distress. Yet the US, and many other countries, have sat that out sometimes. But when it comes to the middle east, we're very involved.

If military action is taken in Syria, I have no doubt that the govt argument for it will be an "ethical obligation".

But I have to ask myself why two of the world superpowers are butting heads this hard over tiny little Syria. My guess is Russia has plans for that area regarding resources, pipelines, and influence. But so does the US.

Certainly could be. Doesn't change the ethical equation, in theory, in my opinion. Honestly, this isn't ground breaking stuff. The world has ratified this notion. They just don't have the balls to see it through.

Again, that does not mean we should act based on what has been presented. That is a whole different discussion.

 

[MG1968]

Are we even talking about the same thing?

Two armed sides fighting each other can continue to do so. That is their business. When you intentionally start slaughtering innocent civilians, especially with chemical weapons, that is genocide.

100 thousand people have been killed so far, a majority of them have been innocent civilians. What difference does it make how they're killed? In Rwanda, a million people were slaughtered by machetes. In North Korea millions have starved to death. These are humanitarian crises that are biblical in scale, but there still is no compelling reason for the US to involve itself militarily.

 

[PKT_VOL]

It's interesting that you, of all people, are leaning toward the US imposing its ethics onto another country.

I've been following his posts as well and I also think the same as you about him. I wonder if someone hacked his account.

I know his philosophy "changes" as things change. But this is a 180.

Really? US ethics? Are you 'effing serious?

This has nothing to do with "imposing US ethics". This notion has been ratified or acceded by 189 states around the world.

I would imagine just about anyone with any sort of conscience would think that intentionally gassing/slaughtering innocent people is an egregious sin/act.

Whether we should intervene, in reality, is a different story. As they say, the devil is in the details. In fact, I have stated multiple times that I would not support strikes as is. However, from an ethical standpoint, I don't know that there is much debate.

The real question I have is how do all the different facets of this situation tie into each other.

• The ethical atrocity
• The CWC
• Domestic politics
• Short-term consequences
• Long-term consequence (AQ getting their hands on those weapons)
• Geopolitical consequences
• Lack of UN support of CWC
• Precedent set

 

[PKT_VOL]

100 thousand people have been killed so far, a majority of them have been innocent civilians. What difference does it make how they're killed? In Rwanda, a million people were slaughtered by machetes. In North Korea millions have starved to death. These are humanitarian crises that are biblical in scale, but there still is no compelling reason for the US to involve itself militarily.

I think there is a compelling, ethical case for the UN (the world) to act.

I think that is what you are missing. I am simply pointing out how the ethical dilemma is supplanted by our collective short-term interests which seem to consume everything.

 

[MG1968]

I think there is a compelling, ethical case for the UN (the world) to act.

I think that is what you are missing. I am simply pointing out how the ethical dilemma is supplanted by our collective short-term interests which seem to consume everything.

I'm not "missing" anything here. I'm just not going to wring my hands over another humanitarian crisis that has US leaders contemplating the invasion of another country.

I'm also not "missing" the fact that China and Russia have pledged to work against the US, should the US decide to intervene.

Another thing I'm not "missing" is that there is still some doubt regarding who used the chemical weapons in the first place.

 

[PKT_VOL]

I'm not "missing" anything here. I'm just not going to wring my hands over another humanitarian crisis that has US leaders contemplating the invasion of another country.

I'm also not "missing" the fact that China and Russia have pledged to work against the US, should the US decide to intervene.

Another thing I'm not "missing" is that there is still some doubt regarding who used the chemical weapons in the first place.

All separate issues. Your post just reaffirmed my point. :hi:

 

[Gannon Goodson]

Really? US ethics? Are you 'effing serious?

This has nothing to do with "imposing US ethics". This notion has been ratified or acceded by 189 states around the world.

I would imagine just about anyone with any sort of conscience would think that intentionally gassing/slaughtering innocent people is an egregious sin/act.

Whether we should intervene, in reality, is a different story. As they say, the devil is in the details. In fact, I have stated multiple times that I would not support strikes as is. However, from an ethical standpoint, I don't know that there is much debate.

The real question I have is how do all the different facets of this situation tie into each other.

• The ethical atrocity
• The CWC
• Domestic politics
• Short-term consequences
• Long-term consequence (AQ getting their hands on those weapons)
• Geopolitical consequences
• Lack of UN support of CWC
• Precedent set

You're sounding more like a Rinocrat with each post.

 

[MG1968]

All separate issues. Your post just reaffirmed my point. :hi:

well, to combine them all into one, I don't care who used the chemical weapons, the US doesn't need to get involved other than to take it's case to the United Nations and let the "world" deal with it.