10 ms·

How about the USA clean up it's own act at home before trying to intervene in another nation which poses zero credible threat to the USA. Look at how Korea, Vi

by D9u 13y ago

How about the USA clean up it's own act at home before trying to intervene in another nation which poses zero credible threat to the USA. Look at how Korea, Vietnam, Libya, etc, have ended up after US intervention. Such a horrendous track record should preclude repeat performances of a similar nature.

natrius 13y ago
The stated goal of military action in Syria isn't regime change. It's creating a powerful disincentive against the use of chemical weapons, agents of mass murder that kill indiscriminately. I didn't completely understand the need for action, so I did some Wikipedia reading on the history of chemical weapons, and now I'm more conflicted about it. I highly suggest doing the same.
- powertower 13y ago
  When the government comes out and says - "The evidence and proof that Bashar was the one that ordered chemical weapons use is so obvious and unquestionable that you don't really need to see or ask for it... Because doing so would be irrational!" Start worrying. In a few weeks or months when it comes out that the chemical attack was really done by one of the 57 or so US and Al-Qaeda backed + funded insurgent groups operating in Syria, I really hope that Obama keeps his word on punishing those responsible (for crossing the red line). Though the best info I could get is saying right now that the rebel group that launched the attack didn't know what they had, and thought they were launching conventional rockets. So I'm not sure you can blame them the same way you could blame Bashar. The funny thing about all this is that if the US just came out and said we are doing this to secure the next 50-100 years of US energy needs and geo-political strategy - I'd be all for these middle-eastern wars because I understand the need for it. But I'm not sure the general public could shed its moral supremacy desires, nor understand complicated issues or how the world really turns.
  - pipy 13y ago
    Or, as another poster summed up [1]: Syria sits right in between the oilfields in the Middle East and the oil consumers in Europe, so when a pipeline is built connecting the two, Syria has a vote for or against its completion. Since oil pipelines are both necessary and quite profitable, this can lead to very large disputes. Al Jazeera covered this last year here [2] where it was suggested that the West would be inclined to usurp Assad for someone more favorable to the West's long term energy interests. It seems their prediction was correct as the US (along with Britain and Turkey) is escalating relations with Syria, using chemical attacks and civil rights violations as justification. The Guardian also has a great summary of the issue here. [3] [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6313628 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6313628 [2] http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/08/20128513344.. http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/08/20128513344.... [3] http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2013/au.. http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2013/au....
- foobarqux 13y ago
  The stated motivation is not the actual motivation. Moreover there is no convincing evidence to date that the Syrian government has deployed chemical weapons. In fact there is little corroborating evidence that typical chemical weapons were used at all. On the other hand we do know that the conditions were such that the use of chemical weapons by Assad would have been completely irrational, providing little benefit while breaching well publicized conditions for the intervention of powerful adversaries in a war that he was winning. As Galloway put it: "First, that there is no compelling evidence, to use the leader of the opposition's words, that the Assad regime is responsible for this crime yet. Not that they are not bad enough to do it. Everybody knows they are bad enough to do it. The question is, are they mad enough to do it? To launch a chemical weapons attack in Damascus on the very day that a United Nations chemical weapons inspection team arrives in Damascus must be a new definition of madness. "
cpursley 13y ago
Sure, but people keep voting for the same type of candidates. The only anti-intervention / melding candidate last time around was Ron Paul, but he was "crazy" right? Am I right? Instead, we end up with a hopie-changie nobile-peace-prize wining drone/scan/spy neocon in disguise. Of course, I saw this one coming. I hope the left and right have learned their lesson, but I highly doubt it.
- Nursie 13y ago
  RP would probably have made a lot of regressive changes at home. He's not very good on women's rights or other issues.
  - cpursley 13y ago
    He'd have to work with congress on some of the controversial stuff, but as commander in chief, he could of ended the wars and not dragged the USA into new ones. Anyways, if you look into his voting record, he hasn't actually spent much time on the abortion issue other than some comments on his beliefs. Furthermore, he sees it as a states rights as he does many issues. Speaking of regressive, what has President Obama changed?
    - Nursie 13y ago
      Oh nothing really, I'm not that enthusiastic about any of them :)
- stephencanon 13y ago
  Utterly batshit crazy, yes. We are discussing a man who has repeatedly called for the elimination of public education and the privatization of all federal land, believes that climate change isn't a serious issue, wants to eliminate social security entirely, believes that there should be no professional licensing, and thinks that there's a need to add the qualifier "honest" when discussing rape, to say nothing of his economic rants. In support of this insanity, he offers no rationale beyond an unshakable belief in the primacy of individual liberty (but not for pregnant women!) and the notion that life was better in 1900, which is demonstrably false by every reasonable metric. Even a stopped clock ...
berntb 13y ago
Can you give a better alternative even with 20/20 hindsight for Korea..? And Libya is far, far from perfect. But they don't have a Nero-copy as dictator, which would have murdered a lot of people if he had won the civil war... Civil wars are always a horror. Edit: Re Syria, arguably the world is a better place if a regime that use chemical weapons is bombed to Hell. To lower the risk that the next mass murdering junta also use them..
- pipy 13y ago
  Who are you to decide what's best for Syrian and Lybian people, in all seriousness?
  - berntb 13y ago
    I apply the general principle: It is a good thing to depose a mass murdering, torturing, raping and thieving tyrant. Why do YOU think it could ever be a good thing when a small minority steal a country and treat the population -- except (partly) his own tribe -- as slaves? How, "in all seriousness", can you call those minorities for the Syrian/Libyan peoples?! (And yes, some of the people fighting this tyrant are hardly much better. Welcome to civil wars and revolutions.) Few tyrants (except the Saudis) still have a large leverage by playing two sides against each others, as during the cold war. That is a good thing, they can be thrown out. The only ones that don't like deposing evil tyrants are the other autocrats, since they know they are next... Who are YOU to want to let them continue stealing, murdering and torturing? Edit: pipy, I think you bought your local Russian media hype? :-) Go check HRW's website about Syria and Libya for the last few decades, or something?
    - foobarqux 13y ago
      You are deluded if you think the motivation of the US is to help those who are suffering. Syria is of significant geo-strategic importance. Gaining control over Syria through force or threat of force will substantially bolster US influence in the region and in Europe.
      - 13y ago
bayesianhorse 13y ago
What Assad and his troops are doing isn't your typical civil war. There is no rationale behind the bombardement of civilian areas. Even if these neighbourhoods really were packed full with islamist terrorists (which they obviously aren't), carpet bombing and shelling is hardly a very effective method. No, this is genocide, pure and simple. If it takes a poison gas attack to elicit a punishment, so be it. The main reason for the planned intervention is not regime change or bringing about democracy. It's about showing limits to what dictators (at least in the smaller countries) can do to their people.
- pipy 13y ago
  How about Wahhabi Jihadists that are being brought in from all over the world to fight Assad regime. There is a good piece by German media that talks about how Europe is supporting ultra-extremist insurgency in Syria [1] by turning the blind eye on Turkey, which is providing al-Qaeda affiliated jihadists with arms, shelter and healthcare. They gather in Turkey, then proceed to fighting Assad regime and massacring civilians by hundreds in the spare time. [2][3] Who is going to "show limits" to them? Syrian rebels in the Damascus suburb of Ghouta have admitted to Associated Press correspondent Dale Gavlak that they were responsible for last week’s chemical weapons incident which western powers have blamed on Bashar Al-Assad’s forces, revealing that the casualties were the result of an accident caused by rebels mishandling chemical weapons provided to them by Saudi Arabia. “From numerous interviews with doctors, Ghouta residents, rebel fighters and their families… many believe that certain rebels received chemical weapons via the Saudi intelligence chief, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, and were responsible for carrying out the (deadly) gas attack,” writes Dale Gavlak. [4] Dale Gavlak has been a Middle East correspondent for the Associated Press for two decades and has also worked for National Public Radio (NPR) and written articles for BBC News. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-pdvbinNLH8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-pdvbinNLH8 [2] http://www.opendemocracy.net/rozh-ahmad/mass-slaughter-of-civilian-kurds-in-syria-ignites-heavy-clashes-and-mass-exodus http://www.opendemocracy.net/rozh-ahmad/mass-slaughter-of-ci... [3] Search the Web for "Lattakia Massacre" (caution, very explicit content!) [4] http://www.mintpressnews.com/witnesses-of-gas-attack-say-saudis-supplied-rebels-with-chemical-weapons/168135/ http://www.mintpressnews.com/witnesses-of-gas-attack-say-sau... First posted in another HN thread. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6313967 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6313967
rdl 13y ago
There are certain US interventions which have been pretty good. Haiti after the earthquake, the landslides in Pakistan, the Christmas Tsunami (particularly in Indonesia), etc. I'd draw a big line between intervening against political threats and intervening after natural disasters.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
r00fus 13y ago
> How about the USA clean up it's own act at home before trying to intervene in another nation Be careful what you wish for. For certain people, "clean up" means "remove rights of citizenry". Looked at it from that angle, the USA has slowly been "cleaning up" for some time, and is getting better and better at it.

by D9u 13y ago

natrius 13y ago

The stated goal of military action in Syria isn't regime change. It's creating a powerful disincentive against the use of chemical weapons, agents of mass murder that kill indiscriminately. I didn't completely understand the need for action, so I did some Wikipedia reading on the history of chemical weapons, and now I'm more conflicted about it. I highly suggest doing the same.

powertower 13y ago
When the government comes out and says - "The evidence and proof that Bashar was the one that ordered chemical weapons use is so obvious and unquestionable that you don't really need to see or ask for it... Because doing so would be irrational!" Start worrying. In a few weeks or months when it comes out that the chemical attack was really done by one of the 57 or so US and Al-Qaeda backed + funded insurgent groups operating in Syria, I really hope that Obama keeps his word on punishing those responsible (for crossing the red line). Though the best info I could get is saying right now that the rebel group that launched the attack didn't know what they had, and thought they were launching conventional rockets. So I'm not sure you can blame them the same way you could blame Bashar. The funny thing about all this is that if the US just came out and said we are doing this to secure the next 50-100 years of US energy needs and geo-political strategy - I'd be all for these middle-eastern wars because I understand the need for it. But I'm not sure the general public could shed its moral supremacy desires, nor understand complicated issues or how the world really turns.
- pipy 13y ago
  Or, as another poster summed up [1]: Syria sits right in between the oilfields in the Middle East and the oil consumers in Europe, so when a pipeline is built connecting the two, Syria has a vote for or against its completion. Since oil pipelines are both necessary and quite profitable, this can lead to very large disputes. Al Jazeera covered this last year here [2] where it was suggested that the West would be inclined to usurp Assad for someone more favorable to the West's long term energy interests. It seems their prediction was correct as the US (along with Britain and Turkey) is escalating relations with Syria, using chemical attacks and civil rights violations as justification. The Guardian also has a great summary of the issue here. [3] [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6313628 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6313628 [2] http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/08/20128513344.. http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/08/20128513344.... [3] http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2013/au.. http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2013/au....
foobarqux 13y ago
The stated motivation is not the actual motivation. Moreover there is no convincing evidence to date that the Syrian government has deployed chemical weapons. In fact there is little corroborating evidence that typical chemical weapons were used at all. On the other hand we do know that the conditions were such that the use of chemical weapons by Assad would have been completely irrational, providing little benefit while breaching well publicized conditions for the intervention of powerful adversaries in a war that he was winning. As Galloway put it: "First, that there is no compelling evidence, to use the leader of the opposition's words, that the Assad regime is responsible for this crime yet. Not that they are not bad enough to do it. Everybody knows they are bad enough to do it. The question is, are they mad enough to do it? To launch a chemical weapons attack in Damascus on the very day that a United Nations chemical weapons inspection team arrives in Damascus must be a new definition of madness. "

cpursley 13y ago

Sure, but people keep voting for the same type of candidates. The only anti-intervention / melding candidate last time around was Ron Paul, but he was "crazy" right? Am I right? Instead, we end up with a hopie-changie nobile-peace-prize wining drone/scan/spy neocon in disguise. Of course, I saw this one coming. I hope the left and right have learned their lesson, but I highly doubt it.

Nursie 13y ago
RP would probably have made a lot of regressive changes at home. He's not very good on women's rights or other issues.
- cpursley 13y ago
  He'd have to work with congress on some of the controversial stuff, but as commander in chief, he could of ended the wars and not dragged the USA into new ones. Anyways, if you look into his voting record, he hasn't actually spent much time on the abortion issue other than some comments on his beliefs. Furthermore, he sees it as a states rights as he does many issues. Speaking of regressive, what has President Obama changed?
  - Nursie 13y ago
    Oh nothing really, I'm not that enthusiastic about any of them :)
stephencanon 13y ago
Utterly batshit crazy, yes. We are discussing a man who has repeatedly called for the elimination of public education and the privatization of all federal land, believes that climate change isn't a serious issue, wants to eliminate social security entirely, believes that there should be no professional licensing, and thinks that there's a need to add the qualifier "honest" when discussing rape, to say nothing of his economic rants. In support of this insanity, he offers no rationale beyond an unshakable belief in the primacy of individual liberty (but not for pregnant women!) and the notion that life was better in 1900, which is demonstrably false by every reasonable metric. Even a stopped clock ...

berntb 13y ago

Can you give a better alternative even with 20/20 hindsight for Korea..? And Libya is far, far from perfect. But they don't have a Nero-copy as dictator, which would have murdered a lot of people if he had won the civil war... Civil wars are always a horror. Edit: Re Syria, arguably the world is a better place if a regime that use chemical weapons is bombed to Hell. To lower the risk that the next mass murdering junta also use them..

pipy 13y ago
Who are you to decide what's best for Syrian and Lybian people, in all seriousness?
- berntb 13y ago
  I apply the general principle: It is a good thing to depose a mass murdering, torturing, raping and thieving tyrant. Why do YOU think it could ever be a good thing when a small minority steal a country and treat the population -- except (partly) his own tribe -- as slaves? How, "in all seriousness", can you call those minorities for the Syrian/Libyan peoples?! (And yes, some of the people fighting this tyrant are hardly much better. Welcome to civil wars and revolutions.) Few tyrants (except the Saudis) still have a large leverage by playing two sides against each others, as during the cold war. That is a good thing, they can be thrown out. The only ones that don't like deposing evil tyrants are the other autocrats, since they know they are next... Who are YOU to want to let them continue stealing, murdering and torturing? Edit: pipy, I think you bought your local Russian media hype? :-) Go check HRW's website about Syria and Libya for the last few decades, or something?
  - foobarqux 13y ago
    You are deluded if you think the motivation of the US is to help those who are suffering. Syria is of significant geo-strategic importance. Gaining control over Syria through force or threat of force will substantially bolster US influence in the region and in Europe.
    - 13y ago

bayesianhorse 13y ago

What Assad and his troops are doing isn't your typical civil war. There is no rationale behind the bombardement of civilian areas. Even if these neighbourhoods really were packed full with islamist terrorists (which they obviously aren't), carpet bombing and shelling is hardly a very effective method. No, this is genocide, pure and simple. If it takes a poison gas attack to elicit a punishment, so be it. The main reason for the planned intervention is not regime change or bringing about democracy. It's about showing limits to what dictators (at least in the smaller countries) can do to their people.

pipy 13y ago
How about Wahhabi Jihadists that are being brought in from all over the world to fight Assad regime. There is a good piece by German media that talks about how Europe is supporting ultra-extremist insurgency in Syria [1] by turning the blind eye on Turkey, which is providing al-Qaeda affiliated jihadists with arms, shelter and healthcare. They gather in Turkey, then proceed to fighting Assad regime and massacring civilians by hundreds in the spare time. [2][3] Who is going to "show limits" to them? Syrian rebels in the Damascus suburb of Ghouta have admitted to Associated Press correspondent Dale Gavlak that they were responsible for last week’s chemical weapons incident which western powers have blamed on Bashar Al-Assad’s forces, revealing that the casualties were the result of an accident caused by rebels mishandling chemical weapons provided to them by Saudi Arabia. “From numerous interviews with doctors, Ghouta residents, rebel fighters and their families… many believe that certain rebels received chemical weapons via the Saudi intelligence chief, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, and were responsible for carrying out the (deadly) gas attack,” writes Dale Gavlak. [4] Dale Gavlak has been a Middle East correspondent for the Associated Press for two decades and has also worked for National Public Radio (NPR) and written articles for BBC News. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-pdvbinNLH8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-pdvbinNLH8 [2] http://www.opendemocracy.net/rozh-ahmad/mass-slaughter-of-civilian-kurds-in-syria-ignites-heavy-clashes-and-mass-exodus http://www.opendemocracy.net/rozh-ahmad/mass-slaughter-of-ci... [3] Search the Web for "Lattakia Massacre" (caution, very explicit content!) [4] http://www.mintpressnews.com/witnesses-of-gas-attack-say-saudis-supplied-rebels-with-chemical-weapons/168135/ http://www.mintpressnews.com/witnesses-of-gas-attack-say-sau... First posted in another HN thread. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6313967 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6313967

rdl 13y ago

There are certain US interventions which have been pretty good. Haiti after the earthquake, the landslides in Pakistan, the Christmas Tsunami (particularly in Indonesia), etc. I'd draw a big line between intervening against political threats and intervening after natural disasters.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

r00fus 13y ago

> How about the USA clean up it's own act at home before trying to intervene in another nation Be careful what you wish for. For certain people, "clean up" means "remove rights of citizenry". Looked at it from that angle, the USA has slowly been "cleaning up" for some time, and is getting better and better at it.