5 ms·

What a strange title for this story "Why the Internet is America’s greatest weapon". It implies a lot about the mindset of the author. Clearly, the author still

by dean 15y ago

What a strange title for this story "Why the Internet is America’s greatest weapon". It implies a lot about the mindset of the author. Clearly, the author still sees America as a shining beacon of democracy for the world, and believes that America should spread democracy everywhere it can. Equally clearly, America does not act this way. While they are willing to send in the army to spread democracy in Iraq, and they are willing to send fighter jets to support the rebels in Libya, they are clearly reluctant to help the people of Syria, who also suffer under a brutal dictator. To paraphrase Thomas Huxley, all it takes is one ugly fact to ruin a beautiful theory.

InclinedPlane 15y ago
Syria and Libya are not comparable examples. Libya has a much smaller population (less than 1/3rd of Syria's), and Gaddafi's army is much smaller and less well armed than Assad's. More importantly Syria is known to have stockpiles of biological and chemical weapons, especially mustard and nerve gas. If we were to set up a list of brutal dictatorships based on the order of which are most deserving of being toppled then likely North Korea would be on the top, perhaps even above Libya right now. However, the cost and sacrifice (in civilian lives as well) of such actions must be taken into account, and for both North Korea and Syria it's highly questionable whether that math adds up. We could overthrow North Korea or Libya's government if we desired. But without an imminent external threat the question remains whether it would be worth the hundreds or thousands of lives of american troops lost, and the perhaps tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands (in the case of North Korea) of innocent civilians that would die in the conflict.
- dean 15y ago
  I agree with you. The cost in lives and treasure of mounting a military campaign against some of these dictatorships would be very high. And practically speaking, it's not necessarily worth it for America (as cold as that sounds). On the other hand, some dictatorships are 'friendly' to America, and would never be considered for an invasion anyway. But my point was more the mindset of the author, who appears to believe that America's goal really is to spread democracy around the world. And in the case of Syria, American silence is deafening. Assad reportedly tortures even the children, and there is not a peep of protest from America, let alone a threat of military intervention.
  - InclinedPlane 15y ago
    There's certainly more than a peep of protest from America about Syria. Whether or not the current presidential administration cares is an entirely different matter, but the country is not the president.
    - diogenescynic 15y ago
      Nice you're putting the blame on the president as if he's completely indifferent. Come on, how much influence do you think the USA carries in Syria? Short of military intervention what do you expect? We're already in 3 (Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya) wars in the Middle East and basically flying drones in 2 others (Somalia and Yemen). How many more Middle Eastern/African/Muslim countries can we afford to attack before we risk serious blowback, much less afford these wars?
      - wnight 15y ago
        > Come on, how much influence do you think the USA carries in Syria? Short of military intervention what do you expect? For the USA to promise to provide logs from their worldwide wiretapping to an international war-crimes tribunal. That, combined with records from within the country, would be enough to prove the criminality of, and thus remove the cloak of legitimacy from, abusive leaders. Once the leader was identified as a criminal loyalist troops can defect without bloodshed, instead of fighting the people as their oaths would otherwise require. A consistent and strong American voice presenting the facts would change everything, even if the enforcement was left to others. At least the legitimacy of the rebels would be clear and they'd be able to get support.
        diogenescynic 15y ago
        |For the USA to promise to provide logs from their worldwide wiretapping to an international war-crimes tribunal. Comical. You think the USA is wiretapping all phones everywhere? How does this work? How has this massive conspiracy not been exposed? You missed my point and misunderstood my question. What do you expect the US to do in Syria? We don't hold any leverage there. We're already militarily over-extended. Politically we have no appetite for another war with another Muslim country. |A consistent and strong American voice presenting the facts would change everything, even if the enforcement was left to others. At least the legitimacy of the rebels would be clear and they'd be able to get support. Done and done as GHFigs points out: "In a statement, President Barack Obama strongly condemned "the abhorrent violence" committed by the Syrian government. "I call upon the Syrian authorities to refrain from any further violence against peaceful protestors," said President Obama. "Furthermore, the arbitrary arrests, detention and torture of prisoners that has been reported must end now, and the free flow of information must be permitted so that there can be independent verification of events on the ground." http://www.voanews.com/policy/editorials/Syrians-Call-For-Freedom-119951569.html http://www.voanews.com/policy/editorials/Syrians-Call-For-Fr...
- guard-of-terra 15y ago
  "More importantly Syria is known to have stockpiles of biological and chemical weapons, especially mustard and nerve gas." Therefore, we would conclude that having biological and chemical weapons is a viable defence strategy against US/NATO invasion or subversion. Who knows: if Iraq actually did have some WMD, perhaps Hussein could still rune.
anamax 15y ago
> Equally clearly, America does not act this way. Does not ALWAYS act that way. However, while it's clear that America is far from perfect, it's unclear who, if anyone, is anywhere near as close. Suggestions? (Note - the answer has to have significant capacity. Otherwise I'll nominate some random church group in Texas. Come to think of it, random US church groups do more good than most countries.) I note that whenever there's a natural disaster, the first thing that goes through everyone's mind is "How soon will the Americans show up?" Until you've got something better, the appropriate response is "thank you".

by dean 15y ago

InclinedPlane 15y ago

Syria and Libya are not comparable examples. Libya has a much smaller population (less than 1/3rd of Syria's), and Gaddafi's army is much smaller and less well armed than Assad's. More importantly Syria is known to have stockpiles of biological and chemical weapons, especially mustard and nerve gas. If we were to set up a list of brutal dictatorships based on the order of which are most deserving of being toppled then likely North Korea would be on the top, perhaps even above Libya right now. However, the cost and sacrifice (in civilian lives as well) of such actions must be taken into account, and for both North Korea and Syria it's highly questionable whether that math adds up. We could overthrow North Korea or Libya's government if we desired. But without an imminent external threat the question remains whether it would be worth the hundreds or thousands of lives of american troops lost, and the perhaps tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands (in the case of North Korea) of innocent civilians that would die in the conflict.

dean 15y ago
I agree with you. The cost in lives and treasure of mounting a military campaign against some of these dictatorships would be very high. And practically speaking, it's not necessarily worth it for America (as cold as that sounds). On the other hand, some dictatorships are 'friendly' to America, and would never be considered for an invasion anyway. But my point was more the mindset of the author, who appears to believe that America's goal really is to spread democracy around the world. And in the case of Syria, American silence is deafening. Assad reportedly tortures even the children, and there is not a peep of protest from America, let alone a threat of military intervention.
- InclinedPlane 15y ago
  There's certainly more than a peep of protest from America about Syria. Whether or not the current presidential administration cares is an entirely different matter, but the country is not the president.
  - diogenescynic 15y ago
    Nice you're putting the blame on the president as if he's completely indifferent. Come on, how much influence do you think the USA carries in Syria? Short of military intervention what do you expect? We're already in 3 (Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya) wars in the Middle East and basically flying drones in 2 others (Somalia and Yemen). How many more Middle Eastern/African/Muslim countries can we afford to attack before we risk serious blowback, much less afford these wars?
    - wnight 15y ago
      > Come on, how much influence do you think the USA carries in Syria? Short of military intervention what do you expect? For the USA to promise to provide logs from their worldwide wiretapping to an international war-crimes tribunal. That, combined with records from within the country, would be enough to prove the criminality of, and thus remove the cloak of legitimacy from, abusive leaders. Once the leader was identified as a criminal loyalist troops can defect without bloodshed, instead of fighting the people as their oaths would otherwise require. A consistent and strong American voice presenting the facts would change everything, even if the enforcement was left to others. At least the legitimacy of the rebels would be clear and they'd be able to get support.
      - diogenescynic 15y ago
        |For the USA to promise to provide logs from their worldwide wiretapping to an international war-crimes tribunal. Comical. You think the USA is wiretapping all phones everywhere? How does this work? How has this massive conspiracy not been exposed? You missed my point and misunderstood my question. What do you expect the US to do in Syria? We don't hold any leverage there. We're already militarily over-extended. Politically we have no appetite for another war with another Muslim country. |A consistent and strong American voice presenting the facts would change everything, even if the enforcement was left to others. At least the legitimacy of the rebels would be clear and they'd be able to get support. Done and done as GHFigs points out: "In a statement, President Barack Obama strongly condemned "the abhorrent violence" committed by the Syrian government. "I call upon the Syrian authorities to refrain from any further violence against peaceful protestors," said President Obama. "Furthermore, the arbitrary arrests, detention and torture of prisoners that has been reported must end now, and the free flow of information must be permitted so that there can be independent verification of events on the ground." http://www.voanews.com/policy/editorials/Syrians-Call-For-Freedom-119951569.html http://www.voanews.com/policy/editorials/Syrians-Call-For-Fr...
guard-of-terra 15y ago
"More importantly Syria is known to have stockpiles of biological and chemical weapons, especially mustard and nerve gas." Therefore, we would conclude that having biological and chemical weapons is a viable defence strategy against US/NATO invasion or subversion. Who knows: if Iraq actually did have some WMD, perhaps Hussein could still rune.

anamax 15y ago

> Equally clearly, America does not act this way. Does not ALWAYS act that way. However, while it's clear that America is far from perfect, it's unclear who, if anyone, is anywhere near as close. Suggestions? (Note - the answer has to have significant capacity. Otherwise I'll nominate some random church group in Texas. Come to think of it, random US church groups do more good than most countries.) I note that whenever there's a natural disaster, the first thing that goes through everyone's mind is "How soon will the Americans show up?" Until you've got something better, the appropriate response is "thank you".