How to get away with a War Crime. Syria edition.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
06-11-2013, 04:03 PM
RE: How to get away with a War Crime. Syria edition.
(05-11-2013 10:51 PM)BryanS Wrote:  It's not what's right or what's wrong that determines what our course of action is. I am glad we did not attack Syria because we simply do not have any allies in that fight. However the reports I have read so far indicate that Assad is following through with the plan put together by Russia and the US to decommission their chemical weapons programs. That's a win in my view.

I'm glad there was no intervention either. It would not have ended well, even with allies.

Assad agreeing to decom the weapons was an important development, because we already know Assad's regime is not averse to the use of chemical weapons (and I'm not referring to the ongoing war), and Islamist rebels have already committed acts of terrorism. There was a big risk for civilian casualties that needed to be removed, and ultimately it's better for it be done peacefully than through an American campaign of aerial strikes.

I know policy is rarely based on morality, but the fact remains that the world is letting a dictator who has committed genocide/democide even before this war, to continue running the show. We support horrible people because we want to maintain influence over them and fear having someone worse come along. Yes, it could be worse, but we settle for the horrible and don't press for change until something like a civil war breaks out, and then it's only about capping the crap overflow (ie. loose chemical weapons) rather than actually improving the situation of the people. We don't act over unjustifiable crimes, only the unjustifiable crimes that occur on top of the status quo. So often it seems that all the crimes that qualify as the status quo are invisible, as far as policy goes.

If something can be destroyed by the truth, it might be worth destroying.

[Image: ZcC2kGl.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-11-2013, 07:41 PM
RE: How to get away with a War Crime. Syria edition.
(06-11-2013 04:03 PM)Elesjei Wrote:  
(05-11-2013 10:51 PM)BryanS Wrote:  It's not what's right or what's wrong that determines what our course of action is. I am glad we did not attack Syria because we simply do not have any allies in that fight. However the reports I have read so far indicate that Assad is following through with the plan put together by Russia and the US to decommission their chemical weapons programs. That's a win in my view.

I'm glad there was no intervention either. It would not have ended well, even with allies.

Assad agreeing to decom the weapons was an important development, because we already know Assad's regime is not averse to the use of chemical weapons (and I'm not referring to the ongoing war), and Islamist rebels have already committed acts of terrorism. There was a big risk for civilian casualties that needed to be removed, and ultimately it's better for it be done peacefully than through an American campaign of aerial strikes.

I know policy is rarely based on morality, but the fact remains that the world is letting a dictator who has committed genocide/democide even before this war, to continue running the show. We support horrible people because we want to maintain influence over them and fear having someone worse come along. Yes, it could be worse, but we settle for the horrible and don't press for change until something like a civil war breaks out, and then it's only about capping the crap overflow (ie. loose chemical weapons) rather than actually improving the situation of the people. We don't act over unjustifiable crimes, only the unjustifiable crimes that occur on top of the status quo. So often it seems that all the crimes that qualify as the status quo are invisible, as far as policy goes.



This essay by Victor Davis Hanson pretty much lays out my thoughts on the Middle East in general:
The Double-Dealing Middle East Is Double-Dealt

Quote:About every day or so, a throat-clearing Middle East pundit weighs in to warn us of the Obama’s administration’s dereliction of traditional American engagement.
...
Quote:In sum, the American people think the Middle East is, well, the Middle East: support democracy and we are derided as cultural chauvinists, Western interventionists, and clueless about the nuances of Arab culture. Support the existing status quo, and we care only about oil, not the masses, and geopolitics rather than democratic reform. Stay out entirely and we have abdicated moral responsibility. Intervene and we are “nation-building” in the old colonial fashion.
...
Quote:Yet with Obama something quite new followed: a true isolationist and neo-neutralist president. A cool Barack Hussein Obama, who referenced his paternal connections to Islam and who was a proud man of the Left. A president who was skeptical of Israel and, with an eye to public support, a critic of past U.S. interventions. He wanted out of the region at all costs. The American people, tired of serial wars abroad, snoozed their agreement.

And now? The double-dealing Middle East is double-dealt — and shocked, shocked! — that anyone would be, well, so double-dealing!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-11-2013, 09:40 PM
How to get away with a War Crime. Syria edition.
(06-11-2013 07:41 PM)BryanS Wrote:  
(06-11-2013 04:03 PM)Elesjei Wrote:  I'm glad there was no intervention either. It would not have ended well, even with allies.

Assad agreeing to decom the weapons was an important development, because we already know Assad's regime is not averse to the use of chemical weapons (and I'm not referring to the ongoing war), and Islamist rebels have already committed acts of terrorism. There was a big risk for civilian casualties that needed to be removed, and ultimately it's better for it be done peacefully than through an American campaign of aerial strikes.

I know policy is rarely based on morality, but the fact remains that the world is letting a dictator who has committed genocide/democide even before this war, to continue running the show. We support horrible people because we want to maintain influence over them and fear having someone worse come along. Yes, it could be worse, but we settle for the horrible and don't press for change until something like a civil war breaks out, and then it's only about capping the crap overflow (ie. loose chemical weapons) rather than actually improving the situation of the people. We don't act over unjustifiable crimes, only the unjustifiable crimes that occur on top of the status quo. So often it seems that all the crimes that qualify as the status quo are invisible, as far as policy goes.



This essay by Victor Davis Hanson pretty much lays out my thoughts on the Middle East in general:
The Double-Dealing Middle East Is Double-Dealt

Quote:About every day or so, a throat-clearing Middle East pundit weighs in to warn us of the Obama’s administration’s dereliction of traditional American engagement.
...
Quote:In sum, the American people think the Middle East is, well, the Middle East: support democracy and we are derided as cultural chauvinists, Western interventionists, and clueless about the nuances of Arab culture. Support the existing status quo, and we care only about oil, not the masses, and geopolitics rather than democratic reform. Stay out entirely and we have abdicated moral responsibility. Intervene and we are “nation-building” in the old colonial fashion.
...
Quote:Yet with Obama something quite new followed: a true isolationist and neo-neutralist president. A cool Barack Hussein Obama, who referenced his paternal connections to Islam and who was a proud man of the Left. A president who was skeptical of Israel and, with an eye to public support, a critic of past U.S. interventions. He wanted out of the region at all costs. The American people, tired of serial wars abroad, snoozed their agreement.

And now? The double-dealing Middle East is double-dealt — and shocked, shocked! — that anyone would be, well, so double-dealing!

How is Obama an isolationist? He is continuing the military pivot towards china and Russia and continuing to build military presence around china and around Russia. He also has increased drone strikes in number and in the amount of countries we use them on. He also led the air strikes against gaddafis forces that according to people here only coincidentally led to Alqaeda overthrowing gaddafi. He also is supporting Alqaeda in Syria. Obama is a war criminal by any standard definition.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: