5 ms·

People need to understand that the situation there is complicated before deciding that Obama was an idiot or that Trump’s decisions have been stupid. I submit

by sykick 7y ago

People need to understand that the situation there is complicated before deciding that Obama was an idiot or that Trump’s decisions have been stupid. I submit that the situation is so complicated there that any action, no matter how reasonable or well thought out, will be subject to plausible sounding criticism. So detractors will always have something to decry about the actions of whomever is President. Very little reporting in the U.S. is about what sort outcome would be ideal and how to achieve. How to balance the conflicting desires of the regional powers. It’s a bit hypocritical to overthrow Assad on humanitarian grounds given the death and destruction wrought by U.S. forces in Iraq the past 17 years. The U.S. had no problem supporting Saddam Hussein while he used chemical weapons against Iran. When he used said weapons against Iraqi Kurds there was token pushback by the U.S. Just painting the picture of, “Assad is genocidal maniac” is overly reductionist. It’s a message that keeps the average American mired in the absurdly comical worldview of America being the shining light on the hilltop. I would welcome reporting on all these nuances. Maybe then Americans would start to question why we support regimes like Saudi Arabia while decrying regimes like Syria. Perhaps we’d come to the conclusion that we don’t need to intervene and control everything for the sake of short sighted goals of dubious benefit.

keenmaster 7y ago
Assad. Iran. Russia. Hezbollah. Those are the perpetrators of genocide in Syria. 500k+ have been killed, 13 million displaced. Additionally, ISIS was invited into Syria by Assad (details in the Syria thread below) to muddy the waters and make things "complicated" as you describe, but also to add another party to murder Syrian Arabs. That is not a reductionist description, that is reality, just like the following statement: Hitler perpetrated the Holocaust. There is no danger in calling a genocide a genocide. The danger is, in fact, in not doing so. The people should know the truth. Global cooperation and reaction will follow. "It's complicated" doesn't cut it. In fact, Russian and Iranian bots have spread mass confusion and disbelief on Facebook specifically so that the constituents of developed nations don't get emotionally moved regarding the genocide in Syria. That is not to say the Russian or Iranian people support what their dictatorships are doing. I wish the best for those peoples.
- sykick 7y ago
  There is a great danger with convincing Americans that “they are bad and we are good” is justification enough to invade, kill, or otherwise bring destruction on another nation. Such simplistic reasoning allows those in power to do whatever they wish to other nations provided they can paint that nation as the bad guy. I do not in any way support Assad. I also don’t fully understand what is going on there and what the various actors desire. But I do know that just saying Assad is evil is not enough to justify military action. Overall though, your point here supports my view. It is hopeless at present to expect an informed populace. We are not psychologically prepared as a species to resist sustained, subtle propaganda and said propaganda is far too easy to do nowadays. Hence, I’m content to bury my head in the sand.
  - keenmaster 7y ago
    Never Again is a serious duty to uphold. I refuse to bury my head in the sand. That would yield the world to agents of chaos and malice. Inaction is a choice. To not act when a genocide is happening is to be an accessory to that genocide. There is no opting out. Note that I have not said what "action" would entail, but I want everyone to reflect on how the Allied Powers ultimately rescued the Jews during the Holocaust. Reflect on how Clinton saved the Bosnians, racked with guilt for not helping in Rwanda. Needless to say, those actions were 100% necessary. I hope you achieve the peace you seek by turning off the news though. I get it.
  - brlewis 7y ago
    Can you fill this in? The U.S. should intervene in Syria Pro ... Con ... What makes it complicated? If you're unsure of the truth of pro/con arguments or need to dissect them, you can use https://en.howtruthful.com/o/ https://en.howtruthful.com/o/ to make a hypertext representation of the tree of arguments. I made HowTruthful, so this is self-promotion. But I'm going to keep self-promoting because it's important to let people know that dissecting arguments doesn't have to be as arduous as they think.
    - sykick 7y ago

by sykick 7y ago

keenmaster 7y ago

Assad. Iran. Russia. Hezbollah. Those are the perpetrators of genocide in Syria. 500k+ have been killed, 13 million displaced. Additionally, ISIS was invited into Syria by Assad (details in the Syria thread below) to muddy the waters and make things "complicated" as you describe, but also to add another party to murder Syrian Arabs. That is not a reductionist description, that is reality, just like the following statement: Hitler perpetrated the Holocaust. There is no danger in calling a genocide a genocide. The danger is, in fact, in not doing so. The people should know the truth. Global cooperation and reaction will follow. "It's complicated" doesn't cut it. In fact, Russian and Iranian bots have spread mass confusion and disbelief on Facebook specifically so that the constituents of developed nations don't get emotionally moved regarding the genocide in Syria. That is not to say the Russian or Iranian people support what their dictatorships are doing. I wish the best for those peoples.

sykick 7y ago
There is a great danger with convincing Americans that “they are bad and we are good” is justification enough to invade, kill, or otherwise bring destruction on another nation. Such simplistic reasoning allows those in power to do whatever they wish to other nations provided they can paint that nation as the bad guy. I do not in any way support Assad. I also don’t fully understand what is going on there and what the various actors desire. But I do know that just saying Assad is evil is not enough to justify military action. Overall though, your point here supports my view. It is hopeless at present to expect an informed populace. We are not psychologically prepared as a species to resist sustained, subtle propaganda and said propaganda is far too easy to do nowadays. Hence, I’m content to bury my head in the sand.
- keenmaster 7y ago
  Never Again is a serious duty to uphold. I refuse to bury my head in the sand. That would yield the world to agents of chaos and malice. Inaction is a choice. To not act when a genocide is happening is to be an accessory to that genocide. There is no opting out. Note that I have not said what "action" would entail, but I want everyone to reflect on how the Allied Powers ultimately rescued the Jews during the Holocaust. Reflect on how Clinton saved the Bosnians, racked with guilt for not helping in Rwanda. Needless to say, those actions were 100% necessary. I hope you achieve the peace you seek by turning off the news though. I get it.
- brlewis 7y ago
  Can you fill this in? The U.S. should intervene in Syria Pro ... Con ... What makes it complicated? If you're unsure of the truth of pro/con arguments or need to dissect them, you can use https://en.howtruthful.com/o/ https://en.howtruthful.com/o/ to make a hypertext representation of the tree of arguments. I made HowTruthful, so this is self-promotion. But I'm going to keep self-promoting because it's important to let people know that dissecting arguments doesn't have to be as arduous as they think.
  - sykick 7y ago