US moves naval group closer to Syria

[Fidel_Castronaut]

If they want to commit mutual suicide, I say let them.  Then we have one less "crazy dictator" to worry about in the future.

And the massive civilian death toll?  Not our problem?

Truthfully? There have been countless massacres of civilians throughout the world on an almost yearly basis that nobody has wanted to involve themselves in.

Look at Somalia. Arguably doing more to prevent pirate attacks and the operations of Islamist groups there would be much more beneficial, as we could save money by stopping freight being taken and from the deployment of a constant
Naval flotilla around the Horn of Africa.

[Plu]

If you are completely honest with yourself, you realise you don't really give a fuck unless someone explicitly forces media attention on it and tries to make you feel bad about it. If nobody does, you will go on with your happy life without consciously realising that there's loads of horrible things going on around the world.

The main reason someone keeps rubbing in "massive civilian death toll" is because they're hoping to profit from it, otherwise it'd be getting about as much coverage as all the other civil wars and horrible dictatorships in the world get. (Wait, there's more than Syria and North Korea? Why didn't we know? :o)

[SGOS]

US has spent over 1.4 trillion dollars in 12 years for wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, another half a trillion to Syria.

The US taxpayers will be paying for these wars.

I remember before going into Iraq, some Sunday morning news program group was throwing around figures about how expensive the war might get.  They were talking in single digit billions.  One wild pundit said it might even go as high as 10 billion.  The others shrugged and acted skeptical, but agreed, that they supposed that might be possible.

A few weeks later, on another program, talking heads started competing with each other to come up with biggest estimates.  One guy threw caution to the wind and said it could cost a trillion dollars, but everyone just thought he was looking for attention.

[SGOS]

And the massive civilian death toll?  Not our problem?

It's not an easy question to address.   Everyone recognizes the horrors of wars.  Few people relish the thought of massive human suffering, but take the emotional response out of it, and I don't see a clear cut answer to your question.  Why should any country expect a solution from us?  Because we have a lot of money and a powerful air force?

OK we've established that suffering is a bad thing.  If it is somehow determined that it truly is our problem, that takes us deeper into much more difficult questions where black and white answers are not so easily arrived at with a heartfelt emotion.

Our response is always the same in these situations.  We send in the Air Force and bomb the place into chaos.  That's what we do, because the assholes involved in this civil war aren't going to pay any attention to us if we don't.  We also do this because we really don't know what else to do.  This of course results in massive civilian deaths, although now it's being done by the good guys with good intentions.

As someone said, "Wash, rinse, and repeat." You know how this plays out over and over again.  What is the civilian response to us in the end?  What happens when power is turned over to the next dictator, who now has the right to perpetuate the evil for his own self interests.

Aside from the ineffectiveness of our massive military strength that can't seem to bomb bad people into good people, there is the question of cost, and this issue is especially important.  The financial hardship on the tax paying class is no small thing.  We could spend all of our money, and what then?  It's not like we can once and for all end suffering and injustice around the world.  It's not even close to a reasonably achievable goal.

But when confronted with your simple question, the answer is obvious:  "Stop the suffering.  Stamp out the evil."  What comes next is the hard part.  It's the part where our history of success is far less than stellar, and that makes the solution to "our" problem not quite so black and white.

[josephpalazzo]

And the massive civilian death toll?  Not our problem?

It's not an easy question to address.   Everyone recognizes the horrors of wars.  Few people relish the thought of massive human suffering, but take the emotional response out of it, and I don't see a clear cut answer to your question.  Why should any country expect a solution from us?  Because we have a lot of money and a powerful air force?

OK we've established that suffering is a bad thing.  If it is somehow determined that it truly is our problem, that takes us deeper into much more difficult questions where black and white answers are not so easily arrived at with a heartfelt emotion.

Our response is always the same in these situations.  We send in the Air Force and bomb the place into chaos.  That's what we do, because the assholes involved in this civil war aren't going to pay any attention to us if we don't.  We also do this because we really don't know what else to do.  This of course results in massive civilian deaths, although now it's being done by the good guys with good intentions.

As someone said, "Wash, rinse, and repeat." You know how this plays out over and over again.  What is the civilian response to us in the end?  What happens when power is turned over to the next dictator, who now has the right to perpetuate the evil for his own self interests.

Aside from the ineffectiveness of our massive military strength that can't seem to bomb bad people into good people, there is the question of cost, and this issue is especially important.  The financial hardship on the tax paying class is no small thing.  We could spend all of our money, and what then?  It's not like we can once and for all end suffering and injustice around the world.  It's not even close to a reasonably achievable goal.

But when confronted with your simple question, the answer is obvious:  "Stop the suffering.  Stamp out the evil."  What comes next is the hard part.  It's the part where our history of success is far less than stellar, and that makes the solution to "our" problem not quite so black and white.

Let's move from the general to the particular: in this case, the US is not in the position of changing Syria into a democracy. The lesson from Iraq tells us that in the ME, such a process is froth with too many trappings -- different belief systems in Islam, coupled with diverse ethnicities and complete distrust of Western values, makes it an impossible task. Furthermore in Syria, you have a long history of ties with Iran, which won't disappear overnight. Add to that that the Saoudis will finance Al Qaeda to advance their Sunni interest in Syria, and you can surmise that for the US to go in like in Iraq with the idea of democratization would be utterly foolish.

So it only comes down with the deterence of using chemical weapons. That means, punitive measures such that it will make anyone else thinking of using chemical weapons a non-start.

[SilentFutility]

Or will it just solely be targeting chemical weapons facilities? If so, does that mean that we're ok with a killing field just so long as its the right type of killing field?

Not to mention that targeting chemical weapons facilities is potentially very dangerous for anyone in the surrounding area, seeing as how you're basically blowing up a facility which is storing large quantities of deadly and dangerous chemicals.

If there is no action, then every dictator will use poisonous gas. This is just logic.

I'm a dictator in country A. In region B, there is a faction challenging my authority. Simple: gas region B, end of problem for me.

If there is no action taken in this case by anyone, the US, NATO, the UN, whatever, then this  kind of news will be on day after day after day. Is this the kind of world you want to live in?

I'm a dictator in country C, I feel like systematically carrying out ethnic and social cleansing against anyone I don't particularly like. Simple: do it, as long as I don't use chemical weapons I won't get bombed.

Evidently, it is.  Hence the present situation.

And if using WMDs on civilians isn't the sort of thing that merits intervention, what is?

Oh come on now, as if people haven't been indiscriminately targeting civillians with area-effect weapons since it became possible to do so.
I strongly suggest reading up on Agent Orange, although of course that "isn't a chemical weapon" depending on who you ask.

People do incredibly cruel things in times of war and picking one very narrowly-defined type of cruel atrocity possible to commit during conflict and focusing on that and only that as something that is unacceptable and requires intervention is sensationalist and irrational, and thinking that absolutely anything whatsoever will be achieved by kicking the hornet's nest and then running away again and doing nothing else is very naive.

who would we target, and why? And what would it achieve?

Assad and his chemical weapons, because he is the designated bad guy and his chemical weapons, because they are the arbitrary line in the sand drawn where acts of great cruelty that are left unchecked for years suddenly make everyone feel indignant and obliged to seek justice. As for the final question, nothing other than blowing shit up.

Also, if the UK indicates it wants to get involved, I will certainly be investing time into lobbying my local MP to oppose any intervention and submitting my signature to any petition that seeks to keep British and other forces out.

Not that that will have any effect. Where the US goes, the lapdog will surely follow.

[Hydra009]

If you are completely honest with yourself, you realise you don't really give a fuck unless someone explicitly forces media attention on it and tries to make you feel bad about it. If nobody does, you will go on with your happy life without consciously realising that there's loads of horrible things going on around the world.

The main reason someone keeps rubbing in "massive civilian death toll" is because they're hoping to profit from it, otherwise it'd be getting about as much coverage as all the other civil wars and horrible dictatorships in the world get. (Wait, there's more than Syria and North Korea? Why didn't we know? :o)

I see.  So, no one cares about atrocities in the world except for when the media focuses on it and the only reason people do that is because they're hoping to profit from it.  Does that sound correct?   :-k

[billhilly]

Gas has been around for over 100 years and hasn't been anywhere near the problem that you seem to think it will all of a sudden become.

Evidently, it is.  Hence the present situation.

And if using WMDs on civilians isn't the sort of thing that merits intervention, what is?

In the present situation, gas has killed a tiny fraction of the people killed by conventional weapons. I don't think it really matters to the civilians whether they were killed by gas, shot, or blown up with a bomb.  They're dead.  Why does it make such a big difference to you?

[Hydra009]

It's not an easy question to address.   Everyone recognizes the horrors of wars.  Few people relish the thought of massive human suffering

Yet they are more than willing to allow it.  A strange set of ethics, that.

take the emotional response out of it, and I don't see a clear cut answer to your question

Emotions run both ways.  I see war-weary people who are understandably loathe to commit to yet another military intervention in an area of world that has long seemed perpetually hopeless.  And that ontop of the usual reluctance - cost in lives followed closely (perhaps too closely) with dollar costs, and "not my problem" sentiment.

Why should any country expect a solution from us?  Because we have a lot of money and a powerful air force?

Good question.

Our response is always the same in these situations.  We send in the Air Force and bomb the place into chaos.  That's what we do, because the assholes involved in this civil war aren't going to pay any attention to us if we don't.  We also do this because we really don't know what else to do.  This of course results in massive civilian deaths, although now it's being done by the good guys with good intentions.

If your gameplan results in just as much deaths as WMD attacks on cities, it might need just a tad bit of work.

As someone said, "Wash, rinse, and repeat." You know how this plays out over and over again.  What is the civilian response to us in the end?  What happens when power is turned over to the next dictator, who now has the right to perpetuate the evil for his own self interests.

And what happens when this stuff gets ignored?  Does it get better?  Does it go away?

Yanno, I do know of a Middle Eastern country whose dictator launched chemical attacks on rebel forces and the US didn't get involved.  Didn't turn out so well at the time and definitely didn't turn out so well years later.

Obviously, Syria isn't going to be stable let alone safe anytime soon, but I dunno, I think not entirely annihilated is a goal worth moving towards.

Aside from the ineffectiveness of our massive military strength that can't seem to bomb bad people into good people

Is that a proposed solution?   :-k

But when confronted with your simple question, the answer is obvious:  "Stop the suffering.  Stamp out the evil."  What comes next is the hard part.  It's the part where our history of success is far less than stellar, and that makes the solution to "our" problem not quite so black and white.

Shouldn't that simply lead one to come up with a better gameplan post-intervention rather than deciding against intervention entirely?

[Hydra009]

If there is no action, then every dictator will use poisonous gas. This is just logic.

I'm a dictator in country A. In region B, there is a faction challenging my authority. Simple: gas region B, end of problem for me.

If there is no action taken in this case by anyone, the US, NATO, the UN, whatever, then this  kind of news will be on day after day after day. Is this the kind of world you want to live in?

I'm a dictator in country C, I feel like systematically carrying out ethnic and social cleansing against anyone I don't particularly like. Simple: do it, as long as I don't use chemical weapons I won't get bombed.

I dunno, one case where the dictator did carry out ethnic cleansing and most definitely did get bombed soon after comes readily to mind.  

Evidently, it is.  Hence the present situation.

And if using WMDs on civilians isn't the sort of thing that merits intervention, what is?

Oh come on now, as if people haven't been indiscriminately targeting civillians with area-effect weapons since it became possible to do so.

And such things have become crimes against humanity in recent human history.  With a mixed bag of punishments from the international community, up to and including military intervention if the situation gets dire enough.

People do incredibly cruel things in times of war and picking one very narrowly-defined type of cruel atrocity possible to commit during conflict and focusing on that and only that as something that is unacceptable and requires intervention is sensationalist and irrational

Is it irrational to call WMD-related atrocity unacceptable?   :-k

and thinking that absolutely anything whatsoever will be achieved by kicking the hornet's nest and then running away again and doing nothing else is very naive.

Last time I checked, the hornets were already abuzz.

Where the US goes, the lapdog will surely follow.

UK, France, Germany, and Turkey.  And in short order, too.  Either we're amazingly persuasive or they are.

[SGOS]

But when confronted with your simple question, the answer is obvious:  "Stop the suffering.  Stamp out the evil."  What comes next is the hard part.  It's the part where our history of success is far less than stellar, and that makes the solution to "our" problem not quite so black and white.

Shouldn't that simply lead one to come up with a better gameplan post-intervention rather than deciding against intervention entirely?

I'm not sure what that would be.  Our strength is our military, which of course is awesome, but it's not very good at enlightening tribal cultures.  And post intervention requires ground troops to protect our emissaries while they fiddle around with stuff for years, often producing questionable results, and it gets expensive to occupy countries over long periods of time.

I guess the financial strain is a judgment call.  For me, it looms very large.  It may not be important to others.

[Plu]

If you are completely honest with yourself, you realise you don't really give a fuck unless someone explicitly forces media attention on it and tries to make you feel bad about it. If nobody does, you will go on with your happy life without consciously realising that there's loads of horrible things going on around the world.

The main reason someone keeps rubbing in "massive civilian death toll" is because they're hoping to profit from it, otherwise it'd be getting about as much coverage as all the other civil wars and horrible dictatorships in the world get. (Wait, there's more than Syria and North Korea? Why didn't we know? :o)

I see.  So, no one cares about atrocities in the world except for when the media focuses on it and the only reason people do that is because they're hoping to profit from it.  Does that sound correct?   :-k

Nobody who's posting on the internet about whatever atrocity happens to be discussed in the media at that very moment really cares. People who are actually out there, dealing with the atrocities, those really care. People who discuss atrocities that aren't broadly handled in the media care, at least somewhat.

Before this whole Syria thing started, there was probably an exactly equal amount of shit going around in the world. How many hours did you spend thinking about the horrible things going on then? How much do you think about all the horrible things outside of Syria going on? How many concrete shitstorms that aren't in the major media do you even know about? How much of your time are you spending to try and solve these problems?

You might care on a fundamental level of "I think this is wrong and I would like it to change", but that's so low on the scale of "care" it might as well be "don't care". I'm certainly not willing to say that someone who think that people being homeless is a bad thing but never gives them money, donates his time to them, or supports any charities trying to help "cares" about the homeless. And I don't think that anyone who only posts on the internet to his close circle about this topic cares enough to deserve the term either.

(Unless some of you are secretly really doing something about the problem, in which case my hat's off to you.)

[josephpalazzo]

But when confronted with your simple question, the answer is obvious:  "Stop the suffering.  Stamp out the evil."  What comes next is the hard part.  It's the part where our history of success is far less than stellar, and that makes the solution to "our" problem not quite so black and white.

Shouldn't that simply lead one to come up with a better gameplan post-intervention rather than deciding against intervention entirely?

I'm not sure what that would be.  Our strength is our military, which of course is awesome, but it's not very good at enlightening tribal cultures.  And post intervention requires ground troops to protect our emissaries while they fiddle around with stuff for years, often producing questionable results, and it gets expensive to occupy countries over long periods of time.

I guess the financial strain is a judgment call.  For me, it looms very large.  It may not be important to others.

It is a financial strain but look at the alternative: if the US would pull out, and as "nature abhors a vacuum", Russia and China would definitely fill in the gap, and impose their will on the high seas. Do we really want that? Countries that have an abysmal record on human rights, making decision for us, and most likely against us?!?? In the long run, we would not only face greater financial strain, but our way of life would be in dire strait.

[billhilly]

It's a good thing we've got politicians on the left who will speak out against unilateral military action.  

OBAMA:  The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.

http://www.salon.com/2011/03/18/libya_2/

[SGOS]

If both sides have been using chemical weapons, and we end up bombing the chemical plants, we have to take out Syria's defenses first.  The rebels may have used chemical weapons just to draw us into the war for the purpose of destroying Assad's defenses.  It's possible we are just being used.  Perhaps this has been brought up in this thread.  

Just thinking about what strategies may have been involved, and how much of what we might do is playing into someone else's hands.  I'm not trying to make a case one way or the other.  Just wondering.