3 ms·

He didn't "let it devolve into a civil war." He authorized the CIA to fund rebel groups which maintained and expanded the civil war. What exactly do you sugges

He didn't "let it devolve into a civil war." He authorized the CIA to fund rebel groups which maintained and expanded the civil war. What exactly do you suggest Obama should have done with "the power of the USA to stabilize it?" Invade? How would trying to 'fix' Syria be any different than trying to fix Iraq or Afghanistan?

YZF 2y ago
I think he should have supported the more secular democratic elements against the regime. The regime was on the brink of falling and the outcome was probably going to have been not different than where we ended up. Instead Obama stood aside and let Assad and the Russians crush the opposition. But that's just my opinion. My point being that "let's not intervene and let it play out" ended up with an amazingly bad outcome because the fear of a bad outcome from an intervention. Clearly a bad decision. A good decision, whatever that might have been, would have a better outcome. If the argument is that no better outcome was possible then that seems pretty wrong on the face of it. Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan (e.g.) are fairly different places.
- skellington 2y ago
  So the US has the moral right to install a western style gov into other countries? How many times do we have to go down this road, tear apart countries, fuck them up more, and leave with everything in worse shape than before? The US does not have the right to interfere and has proven over and over again that it will do all of the wrong things while trying to force other people with different ways of living and thinking to behave in a western way.
  - kennysoona 2y ago
    > So the US has the moral right to install a western style gov into other countries? Sometimes, yes. A more powerful entity has a moral right to act to stop cruelty and abuse if they can. I think acting to dismantle the Taliban, for example, is completely justifiable morally.
    - skellington 2y ago
      I didn't realize I was talking to George Bush. I guess the US gets to unilaterally decide what's right and wrong for the world, and kill however many people it takes to demonstrate the shining hope that is Western democracy!
      - kennysoona 2y ago
        Anyone with the power to stop injustice should do so. That's not a controversial position at all.
  - YZF 2y ago
    I disagree with this logic and morality. There is a moral obligation to intervene when failing to intervene results in more harm. Naturally the type of intervention needs to be reasonable for the circumstances. But standing by and letting Assad and Putin drop barrel bombs on the population of Syria is clearly not the moral path. By your logic if Japan hadn't attacked the US then the US should have just stood aside and let the Germans take Europe in WW-II.
    - skellington 2y ago
      WWII was an invasion into Europe, not a civil war. Every time we've intervened in civil wars, the outcome has been bad, with one exception -- Korea. The problems with your thinking are: #1 It's how the neo-cons think and is the justification for all of the US terrorism in the past 40+ years. #2 Who are you to say what the best outcome for another people are? Which people? What group in Syria will have this great outcome now that it's controlled by Isis? #3 How many people did you get to kill to experiment with nation building? Do you really understand the internal power dynamics of countries like Syria, Iraq? Or are you practicing a form of Imperialism?

YZF 2y ago

I think he should have supported the more secular democratic elements against the regime. The regime was on the brink of falling and the outcome was probably going to have been not different than where we ended up. Instead Obama stood aside and let Assad and the Russians crush the opposition. But that's just my opinion. My point being that "let's not intervene and let it play out" ended up with an amazingly bad outcome because the fear of a bad outcome from an intervention. Clearly a bad decision. A good decision, whatever that might have been, would have a better outcome. If the argument is that no better outcome was possible then that seems pretty wrong on the face of it. Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan (e.g.) are fairly different places.

skellington 2y ago
So the US has the moral right to install a western style gov into other countries? How many times do we have to go down this road, tear apart countries, fuck them up more, and leave with everything in worse shape than before? The US does not have the right to interfere and has proven over and over again that it will do all of the wrong things while trying to force other people with different ways of living and thinking to behave in a western way.
- kennysoona 2y ago
  > So the US has the moral right to install a western style gov into other countries? Sometimes, yes. A more powerful entity has a moral right to act to stop cruelty and abuse if they can. I think acting to dismantle the Taliban, for example, is completely justifiable morally.
  - skellington 2y ago
    I didn't realize I was talking to George Bush. I guess the US gets to unilaterally decide what's right and wrong for the world, and kill however many people it takes to demonstrate the shining hope that is Western democracy!
    - kennysoona 2y ago
      Anyone with the power to stop injustice should do so. That's not a controversial position at all.
- YZF 2y ago
  I disagree with this logic and morality. There is a moral obligation to intervene when failing to intervene results in more harm. Naturally the type of intervention needs to be reasonable for the circumstances. But standing by and letting Assad and Putin drop barrel bombs on the population of Syria is clearly not the moral path. By your logic if Japan hadn't attacked the US then the US should have just stood aside and let the Germans take Europe in WW-II.
  - skellington 2y ago
    WWII was an invasion into Europe, not a civil war. Every time we've intervened in civil wars, the outcome has been bad, with one exception -- Korea. The problems with your thinking are: #1 It's how the neo-cons think and is the justification for all of the US terrorism in the past 40+ years. #2 Who are you to say what the best outcome for another people are? Which people? What group in Syria will have this great outcome now that it's controlled by Isis? #3 How many people did you get to kill to experiment with nation building? Do you really understand the internal power dynamics of countries like Syria, Iraq? Or are you practicing a form of Imperialism?