Syria

[lalalemon]

If we do take action and make "limited" air strikes, things are still going to be shit. The whole region is so volatile, I can't see this doing anything but making things worse.

If we don't take military action, things are
still going to be shit. There's no good option.

I know I heard some discussion about convincing the Syrian gov to destroy their remaining chemical weapons, but how can that be done without killing and injuring more people?

[DJQuad]

Originally Posted by lalalemon

I know I heard some discussion about convincing the Syrian gov to destroy their remaining chemical weapons, but how can that be done without killing and injuring more people?

Syria themselves wouldn't. Russia proposed to place Syrian chemical weapons under international control.

[scotticus]

Originally Posted by DJQuad

Syria themselves wouldn't. Russia proposed to place Syrian chemical weapons under international control.

Here's to hoping. Chemical weapons are crippling.

[scotticus]

I don't see much of a difference between dying from a chemical attack and drowning on the blood that fills your lungs after hot slugs pierce them. Premature death by the means of a weapon is something that we as a planet should be doing our best to exterminate. The world should not stand while the powerful kill the weak, so from that perspective attacking Assad is probably the moral thing to do. Our bombs will kill more innocents, but probably fewer will die than if we do nothing. It's shitty math to have to do, but numbers is numbers. I think we'd intervene in North Korea if they didn't have a million artillery shells poised to land on Seoul. It's risk vs. reward and the risk is too high there.

When I'm confronted with a moral quandary, I apply the Golden Rule. If I were in that situation, what would I want? If our government began dropping napalm or chemical weapons on innocent civilians, even shitty ones like Baptists or Scientologists, I would hope our friends and enemies alike would step up and defend the innocent. History hasn't reflected well on those who have let innocent people die needlessly. If America stood by these principles consistently an intervention in Syria would be an easier pill to swallow, but we clearly don't. Our government's motivations are probably not completely ethical and I fail to understand why we as a nation selectively intervene in massacres.

This discussion on Reddit fills in some of the nuances on Syria, but still leaves me dissatisfied. Had Bush not bankrupted our nation in Iraq (morally and fiscally), I'd probably be a little more willing to help out but as has been pointed out by others, we're probably killing just as many Americans with our inadequate healthcare, poverty, and gun violence.

Another interesting wrinkle is that the threat of violence from the US military is a pretty strong poker hand to carry... the threat alone might be enough to bring about change. Could the forecast of a Tomahawk shower be enough to make Assad's knees buckle? Possibly. He also might call our bluff. International politics is some high stakes shit.

I don't fucking know. The world isn't black and white, and anyone who sees the world as black and white is a fucking simpleton. It's 50 shades of grey out there... so grab a pair of handcuffs and latch yourself to the lightest shade you can find. Or just choke out a housewife. I don't give a shit.

[lalalemon]

That last bit it just fantastic. Bravo.

[DJQuad]

Originally Posted by scotticus

Here's to hoping. Chemical weapons are crippling.

Creative as ever.

[Sparrow]

Syria accepts Russian chemical weapons proposal

ok. i can't bring myself to be optimistic, though. there's still the issue of our government ignoring international law and the constitution. if we're going to hold the world accountable, we should hold ourselves accountable before we turn on and tune out again.

[RefusingYouLiquor]

There's more important things to watch like the twerking fail, that was the most epic troll by Jimmy Kimmel.

Why wouldn't Syria accept the deal from the Russians, it's at a minimum a time killer for the flames of war to die, and then plenty of time for them to hide the rest of the chemical weapons.

[DJQuad]

Originally Posted by scotticus

I don't fucking know.

...

I don't give a shit.

It took you 5 paragraphs of babbling and rambling to come to that obvious conclusion. Nice!

[scotticus]

Originally Posted by DJQuad

It took you 5 paragraphs of babbling and rambling to come to that obvious conclusion. Nice!

When confronted with murky waters, I deliberate.