Strike On Syria?

[Aloysius]

http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Blog/2538/a_letter_from_trappist_nuns_in_syria_blood_fills_our_streets_our_eyes_our_heart.aspx

 

"You see the beauty of these hills, the smile on people’s faces, the good-natured gaze of a boy who is about to join the army and gives us the two or three peanuts he has in his pocket as a token of “togetherness”…. And then you remember that they have decided to bomb us tomorrow. … Just like that. Because “it’s time to do something,” as it is worded in the statements of the important men, who will be sipping their tea tomorrow as they watch TV to see how effective their humanitarian intervention will be….

Will they make us breathe the toxic gases of the depots they hit, tomorrow, so as to punish us for the gases we have already breathed in?"

 

of course, some will be sipping tea, some like McCain will be playing poker on their phones in the middle of important hearings about it... 

[Winchester]

The only instance of military intervention which has been an unambiguously good idea that I can think of was Bosnia.  Which was also possible the only decent (if belated) thing Clinton did in his Presidency.  

Will you shut up about Bosnia, already?

[4588686]

Will you shut up about Bosnia, already?

 

 

No, it's relevant to this discussion, fatty.

Edited September 4, 2013 by Hasan

[MIKolbe]

that's just rude.

[Nihil Obstat]

Does anyone else think it is weird that Lilllabettt of all people is by far the most hawkish person in this thread?

[Era Might]

Obama Assures Americans This Will Not Be Another 1456 Ottoman Siege Of Belgrade

 

WASHINGTON—As fierce debate continued this week over a proposed military strike on Syria, President Obama stressed to all Americans Monday that any U.S. involvement in the Middle Eastern country would not in any way mirror the 1456 Ottoman Siege of Belgrade.

 

...

 

Obama was reportedly adamant that the United States is not acting on poor or shortsighted intelligence, unlike the 15th-century Turks who underestimated the difficulty in quelling Belgrade’s peasant army. The president also claimed that the current situation in Syria, when closely examined, “barely resembles the fight against St. John of Capistrano and his crusaders when they breached the Ottoman camp.”

Despite the White House’s claims that an American intervention in Syria would, if anything, most likely resemble the Ottoman Empire’s successful 1521 Siege of Belgrade under Sultan Suleiman I, many remained skeptical this week that a U.S. military effort in Syria would not ultimately result in a military disaster on the scale of the 1456 campaign, which left extensive casualties of over 10,000 Hungarians and 50,000 Ottoman soldiers.

“When I heard we were getting involved in Syria, right away I thought, ‘Well, here we go, it’s 1456 Belgrade all over again,’” said Seattle resident Matt Haggerty, 42, who, like millions of Americans, says he “in no way supports the idea” of getting entangled in any military campaign even remotely similar to the Ottoman invasion of the Catholic Balkans. “Look, we all know what happened in Belgrade: Mehmed II thought he had everything under control, but Hungarian nobleman John Hunyadi organized a peasant army of roughly 50,000 soldiers and relied on the strength of the city’s castle to breach the Ottoman’s formidable naval blockade, which prevented any further imperial advances into Europe for roughly 70 years. And frankly, like most of my friends and neighbors, I see very little separating what we’re about to do in Syria and what the Anatolian corps did during their all-out assault on the Belgrade fortress from the Danube River. ”

 

http://www.theonion.com/articles/obama-assures-americans-this-will-not-be-another-1,33719/

[Lilllabettt]

Does anyone else think it is weird that Lilllabettt of all people is by far the most hawkish person in this thread?

 

well I am a registered Republican. I don't consider myself hawkish. I'm not pro-war, I'm pro action.

 

The prevailing Western attitude is "its none of our business" or "its not our national interest."  Which I find repulsive -- the idea that the gassing of human beings on a mass scale  is none of our business, or that stopping it is not a vital interest.

 

The attitude is: interventionism, boo. 

 

Well too bad, so sad, but we made the choice to develop the biggest military in the history of the world.  Power brings responsibilities and inaction is not a "safe" route to meeting those responsibilities. Not using power can be a misuse of power. Its not only a question of whether its right for us to intervene. Is it right for us to watch other people suffer this way and do nothing? Once you have power everything you choose to do and choose not to do has moral consequences.

 

 

[CrossCuT]

I feel like we watch people suffer every day and do nothing. :(

 

[4588686]

 Once you have power everything you choose to do and choose not to do has moral consequences.

 

 

Yeah.  

 

I don't know if this strike would be a good idea or not.  But I do think it has to be analyzed in the framework that:

1-Inaction carries with it moral responsibility

2-Military strikes do sometimes work

3-They usually do not work, and often exacerbate a preexisting tragedy.

Edited September 4, 2013 by Hasan

[Lilllabettt]

Yeah.  

 

I don't know if this strike would be a good idea or not.  But I do think it has to be analyzed in the framework that:

1-Inaction carries with it moral responsibility

2-Military strikes do sometimes work

3-They usually do not work, and often exacerbate a preexisting tragedy.

 

I can agree with this.

[Winchester]

well I am a registered Republican. I don't consider myself hawkish. I'm not pro-war, I'm pro action.

 

The prevailing Western attitude is "its none of our business" or "its not our national interest."  Which I find repulsive -- the idea that the gassing of human beings on a mass scale  is none of our business, or that stopping it is not a vital interest.

 

The attitude is: interventionism, boo. 

 

Well too bad, so sad, but we made the choice to develop the biggest military in the history of the world.  Power brings responsibilities and inaction is not a "safe" route to meeting those responsibilities. Not using power can be a misuse of power. Its not only a question of whether its right for us to intervene. Is it right for us to watch other people suffer this way and do nothing? Once you have power everything you choose to do and choose not to do has moral consequences.

I didn't know you were in the Federal government and a member of the armed forces. That's pretty impressive.

[Lilllabettt]

not taking anarchist bait.

[add]

Yeah.  

 

I don't know if this strike would be a good idea or not.  But I do think it has to be analyzed in the framework that:

1-Inaction carries with it moral responsibility

2-Military strikes do sometimes work

3-They usually do not work, and often exacerbate a preexisting tragedy.

 

you are wrong, here is why

 

 

The Tomahawk Block IV, a low-flying cruise missile each missile cost $1.41 million.

I.E.:  In the opening days of the assault on Libya, the United States and the United Kingdom launched a barrage of at least 161 Tomahawk cruise missiles to flatten Moammar Gadhafi’s air defenses

161 tomahawk’s at $1,400,000 each , equals $225,400,000, think for a moment if this cost was used for humanitarian aid for the 2,000,000 refugees forced from their homes into neighboring countries, like Turkey and The civilians living around Damascus, eastern Aleppo and Deir Ezzor province suffering from breakdowns of basic services such as water, electricity and garbage.

If America’s desire is to truly stop the pain and suffering, blindly lobbing bombs is not helping!

Humanitarian aid to ease the suffering could naturalize the conflict, a gutless unmanned attack will only result in an expanded conflict beyond Syria

 

I agree in principle that the free world must come to the aid of Syria , but just not with bombs

 

If you think about it a Tomahawk cruise missile is a WMD, just as deadly and destructive as any chemical weapons.

 

Edited September 4, 2013 by add

[Winchester]

not taking anarchist bait.

It's not anarchist, it's reality.

 

"We" did nothing. It was done by others. "We" will not be attacking. It will be done by others.

 

Collectivism is delusional.

[arfink]

And the Tomahawk cruise missile is on the cheaper and older end of the smart ordinance spectrum...