3 ms·

I think you're attacking a straw man. I can't speak for dean but I thought his comment was pretty much: people seem to think it's America's duty to police the w

by Jach 15y ago

I think you're attacking a straw man. I can't speak for dean but I thought his comment was pretty much: people seem to think it's America's duty to police the world, and America does a half-assed hypocritical job at it. > Please tell me, what other country is out there doing more to defend freedom? I hate questions like this because it treats freedom as a 1-bit entity when it has many dimensions. > We have no cards to play with Assad. We're already in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya and you want us to threaten war with a fourth Muslim country? Bizarre, arrogant, and ignorant. I don't think he wants to go to war with Syria but the lack of government denouncement and threats appears hypocritical given our other actions. Did you make this exact same argument before we started bombing Libya? It sounds like a counting argument. > What do more do you expect? Personally, I'd like to see the government do some action, though preferably non-military. It seems like the gov. has been more outspoken about Israel than Syria lately, which is surprising to me.

diogenescynic 15y ago
I was more than fair with dean:...they are willing to send in the army to spread democracy in Iraq..they are clearly reluctant to help the people of Syria His comments are borderline trolling and clearly accuse the US of indifference to the Syrians and are also intellectually dishonest. We didn't invade Iraq to spread democracy, we invaded in the post-9/11 WMD debacle. You are defending revisionist history. | Personally, I'd like to see the government do some action, though preferably non-military Specifically what? What leverage does the US have in Syria? Will UN sanctions work there any better than in N. Korea/Iran? | seems like the gov. has been more outspoken about Israel than Syria lately, which is surprising to me. They have more leverage. They are actually on speaking terms with Israel.
- Jach 15y ago
  I don't think there's a singular reason for the Iraqi invasion, but that's another topic. If the US and the UN literally have no pressures on Syria, then I guess we ought to give a credible threat of military action. Historically Syria has backed down from such threats. I'm much more ambivalent about the actions in Libya compared to Iraq or Afghanistan considering we aren't using any ground troops (apart from when a pilot rescue is needed), I don't see why we would necessarily need ground troops in Syria either, especially if we're just starting out with bomb threats. Edit: a little Googling suggests that a simple embargo on their oil exports (which make up a huge portion of their revenue), or damage to those facilities, or using Lebanon's current weakness, might be enough.
  - diogenescynic 15y ago
    | If the US and the UN literally have no pressures on Syria, then I guess we ought to give a credible threat of military action Why is it our obligation and how are we going to afford a 4th war in a Muslim country (financially and politically)? You're feeding all the anti-American rhetoric by giving them what they want--acting like an imperialist. | a simple embargo on their oil exports Totally, a simple embargo. But we don't use/buy Libyan oil. Are you starting to see why it's so hard to do anything? We have no/negligible leverage/influence in Syria. We are already militarily over-extended. We cannot afford it financially. Politically it would be disaster for the US to attack another Muslim country and it would look like another war for oil. There are no good options. Military intervention should only be used when our nation's interests are at risk. We are not the world's police force. We're already spending $4million/day in Libya: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/05/air-force-libya-war_n_845039.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/05/air-force-libya-war... and the Iraq/Afghanistan wars will cost $4trillion. Not to mention 6,026 US soldiers who have died. We cannot afford anymore wars.

by Jach 15y ago

diogenescynic 15y ago

I was more than fair with dean:...they are willing to send in the army to spread democracy in Iraq..they are clearly reluctant to help the people of Syria His comments are borderline trolling and clearly accuse the US of indifference to the Syrians and are also intellectually dishonest. We didn't invade Iraq to spread democracy, we invaded in the post-9/11 WMD debacle. You are defending revisionist history. | Personally, I'd like to see the government do some action, though preferably non-military Specifically what? What leverage does the US have in Syria? Will UN sanctions work there any better than in N. Korea/Iran? | seems like the gov. has been more outspoken about Israel than Syria lately, which is surprising to me. They have more leverage. They are actually on speaking terms with Israel.

Jach 15y ago
I don't think there's a singular reason for the Iraqi invasion, but that's another topic. If the US and the UN literally have no pressures on Syria, then I guess we ought to give a credible threat of military action. Historically Syria has backed down from such threats. I'm much more ambivalent about the actions in Libya compared to Iraq or Afghanistan considering we aren't using any ground troops (apart from when a pilot rescue is needed), I don't see why we would necessarily need ground troops in Syria either, especially if we're just starting out with bomb threats. Edit: a little Googling suggests that a simple embargo on their oil exports (which make up a huge portion of their revenue), or damage to those facilities, or using Lebanon's current weakness, might be enough.
- diogenescynic 15y ago
  | If the US and the UN literally have no pressures on Syria, then I guess we ought to give a credible threat of military action Why is it our obligation and how are we going to afford a 4th war in a Muslim country (financially and politically)? You're feeding all the anti-American rhetoric by giving them what they want--acting like an imperialist. | a simple embargo on their oil exports Totally, a simple embargo. But we don't use/buy Libyan oil. Are you starting to see why it's so hard to do anything? We have no/negligible leverage/influence in Syria. We are already militarily over-extended. We cannot afford it financially. Politically it would be disaster for the US to attack another Muslim country and it would look like another war for oil. There are no good options. Military intervention should only be used when our nation's interests are at risk. We are not the world's police force. We're already spending $4million/day in Libya: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/05/air-force-libya-war_n_845039.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/05/air-force-libya-war... and the Iraq/Afghanistan wars will cost $4trillion. Not to mention 6,026 US soldiers who have died. We cannot afford anymore wars.