8 ms·

Many of Assad's were. Not that he isn't responsible for his own actions, but the US put him in a position to kill far more people than he would have otherwise b

Many of Assad's were. Not that he isn't responsible for his own actions, but the US put him in a position to kill far more people than he would have otherwise been incentivized to fight. The "Syrian Civil War" would have been brief with few casualties, were it not for US intervention and support of the rebels. We turned a tussle that would have played itself out in a couple of months into a decade-long quagmire that has killed countless civilians, decimated the country, pulled in armies from around the world, and on several occasions toed the line of nuclear war.

shantly 7y ago
There are cases in which half-assed actions in favor of "good" (allowing that for the sake of argument) are way worse than doing nothing. Syria was one of them. Predictably. Quite possibly a worse strategic blunder than Iraq, to boot. And I'm a libby-lib who protested that war.
- jjcc 7y ago
  There are two different groups of anti-war people: 1. People love peace and don't want war, but also they don't understand sometime war might be necessary 2. People who knew that specific war (Iraq war) would have very severe calculable and incalculable consequences that eventually hurt US. Which group did you belong to? As contrast let me tell you that they're also 2 groups of people outside of the US who supported the war: 1. Those shares the "values/belief" with US and saw the war would spread democracy and more importantly would deter dictator countries like China, and 2. Those who already knew the action would fail to prove democracy can be applied to any country, would weaken US so the world would be more balanced. History proved the 2nd group are correct.
  - shantly 7y ago
    Chiefly #2 on both counts. I didn't see it as strategically useful, nor as in fact advancing any kind of humanitarian or idealistic vision (brand, rather, if we're being frank) for the US. I end up agreeing with the anti-war-for-morality's-sake folks more often than not, though, mostly because US foreign policy on that front is kind-of shit, generally speaking, and because my inclination is to default to their position absent a compelling reason to oppose it.

shantly 7y ago

There are cases in which half-assed actions in favor of "good" (allowing that for the sake of argument) are way worse than doing nothing. Syria was one of them. Predictably. Quite possibly a worse strategic blunder than Iraq, to boot. And I'm a libby-lib who protested that war.

jjcc 7y ago
There are two different groups of anti-war people: 1. People love peace and don't want war, but also they don't understand sometime war might be necessary 2. People who knew that specific war (Iraq war) would have very severe calculable and incalculable consequences that eventually hurt US. Which group did you belong to? As contrast let me tell you that they're also 2 groups of people outside of the US who supported the war: 1. Those shares the "values/belief" with US and saw the war would spread democracy and more importantly would deter dictator countries like China, and 2. Those who already knew the action would fail to prove democracy can be applied to any country, would weaken US so the world would be more balanced. History proved the 2nd group are correct.
- shantly 7y ago
  Chiefly #2 on both counts. I didn't see it as strategically useful, nor as in fact advancing any kind of humanitarian or idealistic vision (brand, rather, if we're being frank) for the US. I end up agreeing with the anti-war-for-morality's-sake folks more often than not, though, mostly because US foreign policy on that front is kind-of shit, generally speaking, and because my inclination is to default to their position absent a compelling reason to oppose it.