Syria Crisis.

[Stephanie66]

I said nothing about peace and democracy or forcing it on anyone.

The government gassing children is unacceptable. Not sure what is so complicated about that?

Rand Paul has already come out pro-Assad, and making this a religious thing.

[Nomorearrows]

Yes Stephanie66 and the Muslim Brotherhood are little angels, aren't they?? Bomb all the islamic dictators and regimes and you will get Islamic fundamentalists in return. The premise of bringing peace and democracy in these countries is quite naive and rather ignorant and I express myself mildly.

No one is saying that the Muslim Brotherhood are angels. However I think the Syrian crisis has gone on long enough that it needs intervention (which i think can be accomplished with no boots on the ground). All the sanctions and warnings given to him by the UN are not working. He continues to massacre people without a second thought.

[latraviata]

I said nothing about peace and democracy or forcing it on anyone.

The government gassing children is unacceptable. Not sure what is so complicated about that?

Rand Paul has already come out pro-Assad, and making this a religious thing.

There is hardly a report about the gassing (children) and it is therefor not clear which party used it.

And yes, it is a religious thing, it always is in that particular region. Believe me, I lived there for several years.

[jaelh]

Assad is responsible for gassing children of the wrong religion. That's genocide, is it not?

My daughter could get called back in, so I actually have skin in this game. And although I was against the war in Iraq, that doesn't mean I am always against war. Sometimes, it has to happen.

War is never the answer is ridiculous, which is why I brought up WWII. If we had just left Hitler alone, it certainly would have been a different world today.

No, that's not genocide. That's killing children. It's bad and it's awful and it's terrible, it's not genocide.

There are lots of definitions of genocide, but they all involve the intention to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group.

What Hitler intended to do to the Jews was a genocide. What the Turks did to the Armenian minority was a genocide. Serbs in Kosovo. etc..

Gassing children is reprehensible; it's not genocide, unless it's done as part of an attempt to destroy a people or group of people.

I see what you mean, but there were so many places you could have gone short of WWII and the anti-british stuff.

Assad isn't great; but he's no Hitler. He's not invading neighboring countries; he's not conducting a genocide. Sure, the world would have looked different, but mainly because his success would have resulted in a Nazi Europe. Assad has been in power a long, long, long time and has no territorial ambitions. There is simply no comparison. Given this is a civil war, it's much more Vietnam that WWII, if we want to use bad analogies. And heck, that argument would certainly go against you.

I agree war is never the answer is ridiculous. (and I do favour some kind of intervention.) But you can't pull out Hitler and make slurs against the people that did take up arms against him. Irrespective of the bad analogy, the whole British are appeasers/isn't Assad's wife British do you no credit.

[Nomorearrows]

There is hardly a report about the gassing (children) and it is therefor not clear which party used it.

And yes, it is a religious thing, it always is in that particular region. Believe me, I lived there for several years.

actually, there is a report about the gassing.

This is a [link=http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/08/30/obama-administration-releases-report-on-syria-chemical-weapon-use]report[/link] that the White House released. The UN inspectors also said there was evidence of gassing. and as for the question that its not clear what party used it, all you have to do is watch the videos coming out of Syria.

Also, its not always a religious thing. I am from that region (Syria specifically).

[latraviata]

actually, there is a report about the gassing.

This is a [link=http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/08/30/obama-administration-releases-report-on-syria-chemical-weapon-use]report[/link] that the White House released. The UN inspectors also said there was evidence of gassing. and as for the question that its not clear what party used it, all you have to do is watch the videos coming out of Syria.

Also, its not always a religious thing. I am from that region (Syria specifically).

That report is hardly substantiated. You mean this video?

cqglEK2oI4A

[theologygeek]

Really?

We elect these governments that go to war.

We choose them; we produce them.

We produce the weapons

We raise the soldiers.

We do not refuse to go to war; we do not overthrow the governments that send us there.

And if we don't directly contribute to the making of weapons and warfare

We derive enormous economic benefit from their existence.

Moreover,

We live comfortable lives and

We will not give up our air-conditioning, our cars or our ridiculous, resource intensive houses.

There is blood on all our hands. Directly or indirectly.

YOU individually may have stood with a million others protesting the war.

But as a whole, as a people - we are all complicit.

It's not a choice, it's the accident of our birth.

That doesn't mean we don't bear (at least some) responsibility..

25,000 people worldwide die every day from malnutrition. 18,000 of them are children. World hunger can be wiped out if everyone worldwide joined in to help. Deaths from drug overdoses from prescription meds keep skyrocketing. The US has the highest prescription drug rate in the world. Canada is second. 45,000 people die a year in the US because of lack of healthcare. Where is the outrage? The fact is, if we were to overthrow the government over every atrocity, we'd be overthrowing on a monthly basis.

[jaelh]

There's a funny thing about convictions. Sometimes the behavior of the convicted person is similar to extreme fundamentalism. As a matter of fact, the extreme behavior just recently reared it's ugly head in the latest abortion thread. In a thread about gay rights, someone was told they should move from their state. Extreme behavior: Expecting everyone else to have the same conviction as you. Blaming people who didn't fight tooth and nail to correct the injustice. Trying to make them think they are scum if they didn't fight as hard as you. Example: You can shove that iphone up your ass because you are part of the reason for the unemployment rate, seeing how Apple outsources 100% of it's manufacturing to China. You. Are. Scum.

I believe that God places different convictions on people because there are many things in this world that need correcting. I also believe that it's a sign of open mindedness, impartiality, and not to mention very much okay if others don't have the same convictions that I have. It's irrational to blame the people of a country for all the injustices of their government. It's rational to understand that while people may feel terrible about what is happening, it is not possible to fight for every single injustice. There are too many for one person to take on.

Ah, I see this now.

TheologyGeek; everything you are saying is true.

But I think there is a difference between blame and responsibility.

Virtually everyone on earth, by accident of who they are, derives some kind of benefit from others. We in the west (the US, Europe, AU, NZ, etc...) - even if we're not rich - derive enormous benefit from the accident of who we are; of our migration choices; of our ancestors migration choices; of the supply of energy that keeps us comfortable; of cheap good etc..

That's not blame, that's just fact.

We perpetuate a system that is unjust. There may be very little we can do about it, but we - for the most part - let it continue.

I agree with you that the apple/nike/meat is murder/YOUARESOEVEILIFYOUDON'TPROTESTX are useful positions. But this isn't the only iteration of that position. You can eat meat but acknowledge, no, an animal did die for me to have this meal. You can wear WalMart clothing, knowing that it's all you can afford but it's what you can afford because someone else is in a much worse situation that you, somewhere else in the world. You can turn on your air conditioning, knowing that its causing problems for future generations.

This isn't blame, it's accepting who we are. That we're imperfect beings, in an imperfect world.

To use an analogy: My ancestors took land from an indigenous population, after they were transported half way around the world for petty theft. Did they have a choice? Not much of one. But clearly; my advantages in life are, at least partly, the product of that act.

Should I thus do something about indigenous rights? <--- THIS is the God lays a conviction point. NOT do I have some responsibility, however indirectly, for the current suffering of the local population. Clearly; I do. I didn't do anything, but I derived benefit - and continue to derive benefit - from that original wrongful act. There's a huge scope here for determining appropriate action. But the actual question of blood on my nations collective hands? Yeah. Absolutely.

Anyway. I'm not sure I'm making the distinction here clear; I don't think responsibility requires a particular form of action, but it should require acknowledgement.

[jaelh]

25,000 people worldwide die every day from malnutrition. 18,000 of them are children. World hunger can be wiped out if everyone worldwide joined in to help. Deaths from drug overdoses from prescription meds keep skyrocketing. The US has the highest prescription drug rate in the world. Canada is second. 45,000 people die a year in the US because of lack of healthcare. Where is the outrage? The fact is, if we were to overthrow the government over every atrocity, we'd be overthrowing on a monthly basis.

What's your point though - we do nothing because other things are bad?

However, that wasn't my point in the post, it was about whether "the west" has blood on its hands.

I'm not sure what the above has to do with that, at all.

[Nomorearrows]

That report is hardly substantiated. You mean this video?

cqglEK2oI4A

No i don't mean that video (I had stopped watching Syria TV a long time ago because as a government run media it is biased. I just watch videos coming out of the region) I mean the actual video showing the effects of the chemical massacre on al-Ghouta.

[Arete]

I was opposed to the Kosovo intervention way back in the day (I was a university student at the time) and marched against it etc. However, the view of the US between now and again has differed dramatically. I'm really sorry but it has.

It's just a difference in volume. Any US intervention is going to bring on the same responses. Even in the Balkans, where there was absolutely no oil to be had, people had whipped themselves into a frenzy that the US was trying to "control the Balkans because it was such a strategic area". "The US had staged all the massacres with dummies so it would have a pretext". All this talk of it being a worldwide action? Europeans need to be honest and admit they needed the cover of the US military to take any action on Kosovo (which was in THEIR INTERESTS, because for fuck's sake their backyard was on fire), one because they were uncomfortable taking the lead militarily and two so that when things went wrong (and things did, Serbian civilians and children died from the righteous US bombs that had been blessed by NATO and the UN) the US could take the blame as the baby killers. When US bombings are not blessed by NATO and the UN the response is even more severe, but I marched in the antiwar Kosovo protests, not to mention read a lot of non Greek European media at the time, and there was a lot of Grade A crazy about US motives being said and published. The bad feelings didn't start with George W. Bush, may he and Cheney be cursed for the war criminals they are.

I made the same arguments against the Kosovo intervention. We were going to kill more civilians than Milosovic, we were going to prolong the war, there just had to be some economic interest there that wasn't completely visible. I was wrong on that one. My argument against Iraqi intervention was that there was that I didn't believe for a second Sadaam had anything to do with 9/11, which was being "alluded" to, and once you removed a Sunni minority Arab fascist who had oppressed the Shi'a majority, there was going to be a bloodbath. I was right on that one. My argument against intervening in Syria is that we don't know the players , we don't even have a good handle on the geography, and Little Boy Assad has learned at his father's knee to kill in spectacular numbers in order to cow opposition. I don't have a clue if I am even in the general vicinity of the target on Syria.

[theologygeek]

What's your point though - we do nothing because other things are bad?

However, that wasn't my point in the post, it was about whether "the west" has blood on its hands.

I'm not sure what the above has to do with that, at all.

I don't feel that there is blood on my hands for the atrocities of my country (the US) or the country of all my grandparents (Italy). I also don't agree with your opinion that there is blood on my hands because I didn't try to overthrow the government over the decision to go to war. I understand what you are saying, and there was a time when I would have agreed with you. When I was young and enthusiastic, I felt the same way. Now that I'm 50 and old (yes, I'm in a midlife crisis, why do you ask?), I see things differently. My point is not that we do nothing because other things are bad. My point is that we all do what we can with what we are capable of. We help in the areas that we feel in our hearts need help. Some people are capable of nothing more than getting through the day in one piece, and that's okay. We can't do everything, nor should we be expected to. We also should not be blamed for past or present atrocities, because there are just too darn many to count. While Suzie is busy trying to overthrow the government, Joe is slicing vegetables at the soup kitchen. If Joe is at fault for not helping to overthrow the government, then Suzie is at fault for the hunger and poverty problem.

[jaelh]

i'm only going to try this one more time, cause clearly I'm not doing very well with my point :)

You, nor Suzie nor Joe bear individual responsibility for wars or food shortages.

Collectively, we do.

Collectively, we (Americans, Brits, Australians etc..) have blood on our hands for a great many wars.

I'm absolutely not saying that if you do/do not take action you aren't/are responsible.

We're collectively responsible.

I'm also not saying - if this, then must do x. I agree with you there is great scope for personal conviction.

(FWIW: I'm not (that) young, enthusiastic or idealistic. Considerably closer to your age than I am to many of our younger posters.)

[MajorMajor]

I don't feel that there is blood on my hands for the atrocities of my country (the US) or the country of all my grandparents (Italy). I also don't agree with your opinion that there is blood on my hands because I didn't try to overthrow the government over the decision to go to war. I understand what you are saying, and there was a time when I would have agreed with you. When I was young and enthusiastic, I felt the same way. Now that I'm 50 and old (yes, I'm in a midlife crisis, why do you ask?), I see things differently. My point is not that we do nothing because other things are bad. My point is that we all do what we can with what we are capable of. We help in the areas that we feel in our hearts need help. Some people are capable of nothing more than getting through the day in one piece, and that's okay. We can't do everything, nor should we be expected to. We also should not be blamed for past or present atrocities, because there are just too darn many to count. While Suzie is busy trying to overthrow the government, Joe is slicing vegetables at the soup kitchen. If Joe is at fault for not helping to overthrow the government, then Suzie is at fault for the hunger and poverty problem.

I agree with this 100%. I've never bought into the sins of the father carrying over to the sons or any of that. I am not very enthusiastic over US intervention in Syria because I feel like it will only muck things up further. I don't know that there is a good side to help and instead more innocent civilians will be caught up in the crossfire of a third party ( the US).

Granted I am a pascifist and generally opposed to violence, but I also recognize that sometimes violence needs to be stopped with force. I am just not convinced that anything good will come from US involvement.

Things like this just make me want off the planet entirely though.

[theologygeek]

I agree with this 100%. I've never bought into the sins of the father carrying over to the sons or any of that.

I don't buy into it either. I also don't think we are responsible by default, just because we are enjoying life in the country to blame for the atrocity. None of us asked to be born. There is no escaping atrocities. Every country has had them and will continue to do so until the end of time. We are all individuals and responsible for our own actions. The most we can do is try and help make the world a better place.

[theologygeek]

i'm only going to try this one more time, cause clearly I'm not doing very well with my point :)

Regarding blood on our hands...I went back to read your posts because I don't think that I am understanding what you are saying. In one post, you said that you don't think responsibility requires a particular form of action, but it should require acknowledgement. But in another post, you gave examples such as voting and overthrowing the government. Both require actions. I'm not following you.

[jaelh]

Regarding blood on our hands...I went back to read your posts because I don't think that I am understanding what you are saying. In one post, you said that you don't think responsibility requires a particular form of action, but it should require acknowledgement. But in another post, you gave examples such as voting and overthrowing the government. Both require actions. I'm not following you.

I don't think responsibility requires action - but I think action can abrogate responsibility.

Does that make sense?

Much of our comfort is built on the backs of poor people in other parts of the world. Say, oil, electronics, our climate emissions are causing havoc in very poor countries. Now, accident of our birth, that we're born into a society that lives as relatively comfortably as we do, at the expense of others. We didn't do anything to get here. but we are, and we continue to derive benefit from that accident. That requires acknowledgment.

If we took drastic steps to eg: reduce emissions/improve labour conditions/move to non-fossil fuel energy, I think we would mitigate our responsibility for the harm that we cause others.

We derive enormous benefit from control over certain geographic positions; or that Islamist philosophy has a limited hold; that war itself fuels our economies (esp the US economy) Similarly; that our oil supply was ensured by Iraq I; our "security" by way of Pakistan; the war of drugs waged via proxy in central America (well, maybe not, but that's a policy call) etc.. isn't our individual responsibility.

But the fact that these advantages came, and continue to come, at the cost of other peoples lives - that requires acknowledgement. We (the collective, whole we) aren't lining up to give up our air conditioning; to put down our weapons; to give up the $$$ from warfare; to get rid of the car. The real cost of those things isn't borne by us; it's born by those people whose homes will be inundated by rising sea levels; by children whose hands are blown up when they pick up mines (that we supply, even if we don't may them) and so on.

We could, collectively, give these things up. Our responsibility would be, could be, abrogated. But we don't. You can only do so much! We owe it to our own children etc... Which is true. Entirely true. we can't do everything, and moreover, whatever we do would have other, unintended negative consequences. But it doesn't change the fact that we have what we have, because others suffer.

I don't think that's a sins of the father. Nor do I think it's a you must do X because !!11!. We are all responsible for our own actions; sure. But we're also, together, responsible for the whole.

From what I understand of what you're saying, it is that we're only responsible for our own, individual actions. But the taking that to its logical extreme, it would seem to be that no one can ever be responsible for systemic, or institutional, injustice, because our own individual actions are righteous. It gives us a pass on how our participation in a system perpetuates the injustices in that system. And that, I think, is unintentionally monstrous.

Any clearer?

[tigerchild]

How do you figure that blood is on the hands of the American people?

Because generationally, we tend to allow or not care that our government meddles in international affairs and screws them up (Oh, let's also include South and Central America in this too, actually), arms and funds terrorist organizations (freedom fighters), regularly does stuff to knock off leadership in other countries that tends to have the opposite of the intended effect, ect. Even then, WHY do people care that we got involved? Generally only after enough people of our own suffer and then we don't like it anymore. As long as its just those islamists/hispanics/asians/arabs/commies/black people/people with weird names we can't pronounce that are suffering, who cares? Thank god some of this is changing a bit with the advent of social media.

Individually, sure, we don't bear full responsibility. Just like individual white people might argue that 'gee, I don't own slaves, and I like black people, therefore I am not really culpable in institutional racism'.

Having blood on your hands doesn't mean falling on your sword over it, BTW. But hopefully it means that you wake up and have a very realistic assessment of the benefits you enjoy from such a country, and that you do not look down your nose thinking you are better than other people in that regard. That's what makes me laugh about this US vs. Europe thing. If you look at the grand scheme of things, really? Hey, some of the europeans were doing this shit before we Americans even started exterminating the Indians.

If it makes you feel better to wipe your hands of it, because you didn't personally pull the trigger, so be it. Difference in philosophy of shared responsibility, I guess. The way I see it, most of the middle eastern countries have been propped up by outside governments/interests since their inception, and some of hte problems in the area? Have a lot to do with the history of *colonialism*, and it was the europeans and Americans who *set up the borders, often time artificially and plying one group against each other after WWII*. Which guess what, was kind of caused a bit by people of european descent. I think not acknowledging that is a huge huge problem.

These problems did not spring up over night. They often have their root cause (and have been helped along ever since) by the europeans and Americans.

Therefore, the analogy of having blood on our hands. There's nothing we can do to wash off that stain, but it is, IMO, an absolute moral imperative for us to acknowledge our history of involvement and not wipe our hands of it because it makes us uncomfortable.

[Burris]

Europeans need to be honest and admit they needed the cover of the US military to take any action on Kosovo (which was in THEIR INTERESTS, because for fuck's sake their backyard was on fire), one because they were uncomfortable taking the lead militarily and two so that when things went wrong (and things did, Serbian civilians and children died from the righteous US bombs that had been blessed by NATO and the UN) the US could take the blame as the baby killers.

Sounds like you have a few conspiracy theories of your own.

(As an aside, I was hoping civilians wouldn't be hit at all, but I also knew how futile a hope that was. One thing I can tell you, however, is that the Milošević policies, had they been permitted to come into full bloom, would have killed more people than the NATO strikes did.)

...a lot of Grade A crazy about US motives being said and published.

Media in Serbia is controlled by the state.

I made the same arguments against the Kosovo intervention. We were going to kill more civilians than Milosovic...

Not very damned likely.

[OkToBeTakei]

I think at times part of the issue is the use of the word 'we' or a misplaced patriotism that clouds the issues. I personally do not make hold myself accountable for Afghanistan no more than I do theologygeek or Burris. Our governments, yes. If by the fact I voted that particular party into power then I must I suppose visit the idea. The Commons vote last week in the UK at least represents my view, although it is naive to think a government can call a referendum every time I have an issue.

What this though does not stop me doing is having some misplaced collective we patriotic response and try and either through past events or present excuse it. I don't blame either. The UK should not have followed Bush into Iraq or Afghanistan or really many various follies. Some political decisions made in this country I live in, make me want to scream. I do not think I am alone in that. I think as JFC pointed out the US is not viewed very favourably at all which is quite a fascinating topic in itself why this shift has occurred but I would hazard a guess that it's foreign policy plays a large part. Jaelh really hit a chord in that respect. When oil is a player the US government wishes to go to war but is not so keen to be involved when it's consumption of said fossil fuel may be curtailed via environmental sanctions. Interesting thought. Votes maybe?

Syria and it's internal struggles armed and fuelled by nefarious players is a smokescreen for Iran. Whatever we all as human beings feel about civilian casualties and the correct moral action to take wether that be military, peacekeeping etc. None of which may work. The one issue remains that under the surface the US is in a difficult position with Iran. The friends they have cultivated in the Middle East Saudi, Israel et al. Will be banging on the door looking for bombs soon enough. That's the price for a shitty foreign policy based on oil and really why is it not ok to say that? It is what it is. It's also not the responsibility of every American or their Father. I'll be singing blue murder if the UK falls for that again maybe I'm just a shit patriot :)

[latraviata]

actually, there is a report about the gassing.

This is a [link=http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/08/30/obama-administration-releases-report-on-syria-chemical-weapon-use]report[/link] that the White House released. The UN inspectors also said there was evidence of gassing. and as for the question that its not clear what party used it, all you have to do is watch the videos coming out of Syria.

Also, its not always a religious thing. I am from that region (Syria specifically).

So, what are you waiting for?? Time to pick up arms I would say.

[latraviata]

No i don't mean that video (I had stopped watching Syria TV a long time ago because as a government run media it is biased. I just watch videos coming out of the region) I mean the actual video showing the effects of the chemical massacre on al-Ghouta.

Oh those videos! Showing dead people in the streets suddenly standing up and walk home, or dead people being used or staged in several other places and countries.

[Nomorearrows]

Oh those videos! Showing dead people in the streets suddenly standing up and walk home, or dead people being used or staged in several other places and countries.

Give me evidence that it is being staged in other countries and not really happening. Why would people go so far as to stage deaths and protests in other countries and say it is happening in Syria?

My cousin wasn't killed. They staged his death in Qatar but for some reason I can't talk to him anymore [/sarcasm]. I wish it was staged because he was tortured brutally before they returned his body to his family

You really think Bashar's gov't is so perfect that no one would want to rise against him? My dad came to America because of Bashar's father who was killing anyone who wasnt Baathist. Imagine, you cant be a doctor unless you are from his party.

[latraviata]

Give me evidence that it is being staged in other countries and not really happening. Why would people go so far as to stage deaths and protests in other countries and say it is happening in Syria?

My cousin wasn't killed. They staged his death in Qatar but for some reason I can't talk to him anymore [/sarcasm]. I wish it was staged because he was tortured brutally before they returned his body to his family

You really think Bashar's gov't is so perfect that no one would want to rise against him? My dad came to America because of Bashar's father who was killing anyone who wasnt Baathist. Imagine, you cant be a doctor unless you are from his party.

No, I didn't say Bahar's govt is perfect, nor are the rebels.

http://www.infowars.com/bombshell-kerry ... syrian-wa/

http://www.mintpressnews.com/witnesses- ... ns/168135/

[Nomorearrows]

No, I didn't say Bahar's govt is perfect, nor are the rebels.

Neither side is perfect (is there ever?). But i don't think that the Syrian people should continue to be under Bashar's rule in the name of stability. They deserve human rights,too. I think they also should choose who becomes their president.