Devil's Advocate: for those who oppose intervention in Syria

[sarisataka]

Is there a point where we are morally obligated to intervene?
A certain number of CW attacks- 3,5, 10?
A certain number of dead from CW- 5000, 10,000?
Type of weapon used, e.g. Assad aquires a tac nuke from the black market and vaporize a rebel stronghold?
Never?

[Downwinder]

1. Do we have to intervene to demonstrate that

despite torture and drones we have morals?

[Puzzledtraveller]

6. ouch

[leftstreet]

10. +ouch

[sarisataka]

11. So to summarize

to US never should intervene in genocide because we have been less than perfect

[leftstreet]

16. The OP was about 'moral obligation'

The response was related to that

[sarisataka]

21. See post 19/nt

[Downwinder]

22. Or do we have to intervene because

of the genocides we have perpetrated?

[sarisataka]

23. See post 19/nt

[Downwinder]

24. Like preventing a suicide by shooting the individual.

[n2doc]

2. It is not our place to police the world

Sorry. We have shown repeatedly that we cannot do so. Especially in the Middle East.

Besides, President Obama and you don't seem to have been bothered enough to act on the 100,000 killed by other means in Syria so far. I guess to you only the method of death matters.

[deutsey]

4. Plus, Iraq and Afghanistan (along with 1% tax cuts) have practically bankrupted us n/t

[Go Vols]

12. Yep,Do we even have gas money to get there?

We owe China pretty much what the last two wars cost.Some in the US want to cut alot of Fed. programs to the detriment of our own people.I thought we were near broke,but we can afford another war?

[sarisataka]

13. Thank you for the psychoanalysis

That I do not care about the deaths. I have not weighed in much but at this time I still oppose intervention...

[n2doc]

17. Your post argues otherwise

No mention of the previous deaths. Or of the ones certain to come with or without our 'intervention'. Maybe you do care about them. Hard to tell from your post.

[sarisataka]

19. Devil's Advocate:

In common parlance, a devil's advocate is someone who, given a certain argument, takes a position he or she does not necessarily agree with, for the sake of debate. In taking this position, the individual taking on the devil's advocate role seeks to engage others in an argumentative discussion process. The purpose of such process is typically to test the quality of the original argument and identify weaknesses in its structure, and to use such information to either improve or abandon the original, opposing position. It can also refer to someone who takes a stance that is seen as unpopular or unconventional, but is actually another way of arguing a much more conventional stance.

[HereSince1628]

3. Moral obligation is as ambiguous and relative as morals

Personally, I don't think the US as a nation has morals

Consequently, I don't think that the US can possibly have a moral obligation.

US citizens certainly have a wide variety of morals, and consequently, it is quite possible some US citizens will have no sense of moral obligation and some will have their hair on fire promoting moral obligation.

[denverbill]

5. I think a case can be made for intervention in some circumstances.

1st, I would want undeniable proof that Assad used WMD. I haven't seen any proof whatsoever yet.
2nd, I would want approval and support from every major democracy in the world. I think we would have that support if #1 was ever proven.
3rd, after #1 and #2, the above group should give Assad a chance to surrender, and possibly even grant him immunity. Granting him immunity might not give full justice to his victims, but it might prevent tens of thousands more from dying.

[sarisataka]

18. Thank you

for being the first to actually take on the question.

In general I agree. I would support a limited immunity or exile to save further deaths.

[denverbill]

40. I don't think most people would question that the US should have intervened to stop the Holocaust.

It's a moot point since we were attacked by Japan and then Germany declared war on us, but if Japan had never attacked us, and we had undeniable proof that Germany was systematically killing millions of Jews, I'd like to think the US would have demanded it stop or declared war.

It would be nice to come up with a systematic way to reply to these situations in the future. It's unfortunate that the UN doesn't seem to be making any progress with that. It would seem like they could at least come up with rules governing the use of force by governments, but you would almost have to determine what constitutes a valid reason for citizens revolting against their government. I mean, if the Republicans in Weld Co, Colorado revolted against the Federal government, refused to pay taxes, and shot at federal agents trying to arrest them, it's pretty clear the feds have a right to shoot back and/or jail the tax scofflaws. But if that in turn caused 25% of the citizens in every state to do the same, and it turned into a general slaughter and/or mass jailing, at what point should the rest of the world intervene? Especially if 50% of the US supported the Feds and 25% were on the sidelines.

Of course, in reality, that hypothetical revolt by Republicans could be squashed by just shutting off their internet and TV for a few hours.

[sarisataka]

41. .

Of course, in reality, that hypothetical revolt by Republicans could be squashed by just shutting off their internet and TV for a few hours.

SO TRUE

[quinnox]

7. Oh hell yea

If he used a tactical nuke, we have to take him out. If he used a biological weapon, we have to take him out. Those scenarios, no question in my mind. If he started using chemical weapons as a "go to" weapon, as if it was conventional shelling, and killing tens of thousands, same thing. There are definitely limits.

[AngryAmish]

8. For those about to rock:

we salute you.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

9. I am dangerously close to doing something no woman should be forced to do --

Admit my husband was right.

He long ago stated national defense should be based solely on self-serving national interests. At the time I found it callous. Now this situation is unfolding and he has explained himself further.

Syria is a lifelong enemy of the US and its allies and the proxy of our enemies in Iran and competitor in Russia. They fed the insurgency in Iraq.

But at the same time the insurgency they fed is the AQ organization they are now battling and the last thing we want is for AQ to get the chemical weapons we accuse Assad of using.

The Assad regime can also be leveraged through Russia and Iran, who don't want us messing with their client because then it drags them into messes they would rather not deal with. However, if we mess with Assad first then they are obligated to defend their guy, right or wrong.

Keeping Syria under wraps and AQ without WMD are in the national interest of the US. That means looking away while the slaughter continues. An ascendant AQ won't end the slaughter, they will perpetuate it and gain the apparatus of an entire nation-state -- one armed with WMDs.

If we decide based solely on our selfish interests the course of action is clear. If we moralize our way through we will get dragged into things that will ruin us.

[MNBrewer]

14. Are you requiring that we act alone, if and when we do?

Do we need to factor in the innocent victims of our own military in taking on this intervention, or do we get those for free... morally?

[sarisataka]

25. One would hope

we would not act unilaterally, that would be an indicator that we should review our action.

The point is more to say is there ANY 'red line' where a country should intervene in another's civil war?

[WilliamPitt]

15. What is gained by intervention?

If a cruise missile hits a chemical weapons depot, we'll wind up gassing 10x the number of people we're trying to help by shooting missiles.

[sarisataka]

26. That is a serious consideration

Syria has had enough time to shuffle its weapons. It is likely they would put them upwind of civilian population centers to deter direct attacks on the weapon. There are ways to attack and destroy CWs but it is always a chancy thing.
Attacks on military infrastructure will not prevent further use of the weapons.

[Bragi]

20. Answer me this about Assad and chemical weapons?

What's special about chemical weapons? It's tolerable to kill tens of thousands with bombs and bullets, but killing any number with chemical weapons requires military intervention? Why?

Also, what exactly does Assad gain using chemical weapons that he can't do using ordinary bullets and bombs? Can someone explain this? If there's no real gain, why would he risk it?

[sarisataka]

28. Not just Assad,

but any nation that uses lethal chemicals. (I will sidestep non-lethal chemicals to simplify) Is it something we condone, always disapprove or conditional- non-persistent agents ok, persistent agents are not allowed. We could say what is the difference between killing 10K with conventional weapons, chemicals or nukes? Is there any difference?

[Hissyspit]

27. Who did the attacks? How do we know for sure?

Will intervention do what is intended?

Will intervention make things worse?

How many innocents will die in the intervention?

Why are the neocons pushing so hard for intervention?

I got questions, we all got questions.

[sarisataka]

29. I posed a scenario to those who favor intervention

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023543130

[Hissyspit]

30. Lots of response there.

[sarisataka]

32. I am learning a lot

about both sides today

[Warpy]

31. No.

I pointed out in another thread that this is more of a donnybrook with everybody fighting everybody else. If there had been any sort of organized revolution, Assad would be gone.

Syria is organized by family, then tribe, then sect, and on down the line. National identity is at the bottom of a pretty long list.

Supposing Assad does get his hands on a small nuke, if he uses it the fallout will travel over his neighbors and I don't really think he'd like the result, although the neocons would be delighted.

As much as the propaganda videos tug at the heart strings, we need to realize this is not our fight, none of the factions want us there, we can't afford another war we can't win, and Putin is right, we need to sit this one out.

The only way we or anyone else outside the Muslim world should get involved is under the auspices of the UN.

[sarisataka]

33. I see you are familiar with

Middle East culture. I had some hands on training and still don't fully understand. It is very different from Western culture and norms but we try and treat it like what we know. Hence we end up getting into messes we never saw coming.

An intervention by Islamic nations, maybe with NATO logistic support work work where we would have... unintended consequences but it is not in our nature to let others take the lead.

[Warpy]

36. Exactly.

I've known a lot of people from Syria, both Muslim and Christian, and liked them tremendously. Their sense of humor is as bizarre as my own. I hate that this is happening to good people.

However, I do understand a bit of the culture over there. We have absolutely no place in this one, coming in with a largely European viewpoint. Putin understands this stuff, and we need to listen to him. He's trying to keep us out of another disaster like Afghanistan and Iraq.

I just wish there was a way to gather up all the neocon hawks, put 'em in a sack, and throw it into the Potomac. Those fools want to kill us all.

[sarisataka]

37. Several Russian nationalities

have similar culture so Moscow has much more experience dealing with them. That fact galls some US factions to no end.
Russian is not a neutral observer but they do have the experience.

We should pay heed to what they are saying. Run it past the State department people who have made their career working in the Middle East.

Of course that means taking advice from non-appointees who have the actual knowledge so ain't gonna happen

[Lee-Lee]

34. Is killing of a person with a poison that much morally repugnant than shooting them, blowing them up

We are making some pretty artificial, and really morally meaningless, "red lines".

I really don't understand how using poison to kill a group of civilians is any different than the use of a bomb or tank to do it.

Why does this matter more?

Is it just because we, here, fear chemical weapons more?

[sarisataka]

35. It is true, dead is dead

so could we say the same about a nuke then? What does make one weapon worse than another?

[Lee-Lee]

38. Only the quantity of death

If a nuke kills far more, than it is worse. This gas attack wasn't even a blip on the casualty numbers for this conflict.

[Johonny]

39. The point is if internention has some high probability of doing something positive

Many people are doubtful that "strikes" are likely to lead to any outcome more positive than doing nothing. At the same time there is potential for negative consequences. Since there doesn't appear to be upside, is blowing people up based on sketchy upside moral? If not then we certainly aren't morally obligated to do anything. There is not always an obvious moral win even against an immoral act.