Sweden truck attack

[myDeaconmyhand]

This isn't a world war, we haven't declared war on anyone, and Assad has probably already killed hundreds of thousands before this week. Watching people struggle to draw equivalents to this series of events is comical. A week ago Trump's position was support for Assad as a quiet ally of Russia, now we have shot a hundred million dollar load at a Syrian airstrip and we are #teamregimechange even though we are still attacking the el Nusra front.

 

[jhmd2000]

The counterargument is that we signed and ratified the UN Charter that says that we can't do that unless the Security Council authorizes it. If we don't respect that, then it's hard to imagine why other countries would.

So hypothetically, rich, white, protestant males are throwing vegan, lesbian amputees off of a bridge in Fayellujah (the preferred spelling) but somebody with a blatant conflict of interest drops the veto on intervention, you good with letting gravity do its work?

 

[ImTheCaptain]

Russia and Syria are free to petition the UN for retaliation or sanctions against the US any time they like.

 

[MysteryMen]

So hypothetically, rich, white, protestant males are throwing vegan, lesbian amputees off of a bridge in Fayellujah (the preferred spelling) but somebody with a blatant conflict of interest drops the veto on intervention, you good with letting gravity do its work?

That's the system we agreed to.

 

[jhmd2000]

That's the system we agreed to.

Yeah...I know. It's feels a little odd to say, "Hey man, just following orders." if we shove our hands in our pockets when kids are getting killed with illegal weapons and we have the power to stop it.

 

[myDeaconmyhand]

Yeah...I know. It's feels a little odd to say, "Hey man, just following orders." if we shove our hands in our pockets when kids are getting killed with illegal weapons and we have the power to stop it.

Kids are getting killed all over the world every day in a multitude of wars. Kids have been killed by Assad for his entire "presidency", and they were killed by his father before.

Sent from my LG-H872 using Tapatalk

 

[CreamyGoodness]

Kids are getting killed all over the world every day in a multitude of wars. Kids have been killed by Assad for his entire "presidency", and they were killed by his father before.

Sent from my LG-H872 using Tapatalk

Not going to happen under DJT's watch.

 

[Deacs89]

Seems perfectly logical to me that if we are going to refuse refugees then we shouldn't create more refugees.

So anytime time a country committing atrocities to their citizens and killing them with gas we should only intervene if we are willing to take them into the US. If we are not willing we should not try and stop what is happening?

 

[myDeaconmyhand]

Not going to happen under DJT's watch.

Trump's strategy is no strategy. I just really hope this doesn't lead us to sending hundreds of thousands of troops to occupy Syria in a few years when we come as liberators to destroy what little infrastructure they have left.

Sent from my LG-H872 using Tapatalk

 

[CreamyGoodness]

Need to figure out a way to keep civilian deaths at an absolute minimum, while tactically seeking to destroy Assad and his allies. I hope this isn't a real indicator that we'll end up policing the rest of the world but this dude is an evil fuck that needs to be taken down. Then, we need to shift our focus to North Korea and take out that maniac, as well as his WMD's. Easy stuff, right?

 

[myDeaconmyhand]

So anytime time a country committing atrocities to their citizens and killing them with gas we should only intervene if we are willing to take them into the US. If we are not willing we should not try and stop what is happening?

As long as "intervening" still means blowing all their shit up, yes.

Sent from my LG-H872 using Tapatalk

 

[ImTheCaptain]

but if we slap huge sanctions or embargoes, all good, right?

 

[myDeaconmyhand]

but if we slap huge sanctions or embargoes, all good, right?

There is far more nuance than I am letting on, but the base logic is still simple - if we bomb a country we should allow refugees in from that country.

Sent from my LG-H872 using Tapatalk

 

[PhDeac]

There is far more nuance than I am letting on, but the base logic is still simple - if we bomb a country we should allow refugees in from that country.

Sent from my LG-H872 using Tapatalk

You break it, you bought it?

 

[myDeaconmyhand]

You break it, you bought it?

Essentially, but I didn't want to get into a debate over who "broke" it.

Sent from my LG-H872 using Tapatalk

 

[ImTheCaptain]

There is far more nuance than I am letting on, but the base logic is still simple - if we bomb a country we should allow refugees in from that country.

Sent from my LG-H872 using Tapatalk

so if your crushing sanctions lead to economic ruin, other nations are obligated to accept refugees, then

 

[myDeaconmyhand]

so if your crushing sanctions lead to economic ruin, other nations are obligated to accept refugees, then

I don't consider the scenarios of destruction to be quite equivalent. It doesn't quite help a starving person or a person dying of exposure to immigrate long distances, thats not the most efficient solution to a dangerous lack of resources.

Sent from my LG-H872 using Tapatalk

 

[myDeaconmyhand]

Of course I'm talking out of my ass at this point and probably wrong.

Sent from my LG-H872 using Tapatalk

 

[MysteryMen]

Yeah...I know. It's feels a little odd to say, "Hey man, just following orders." if we shove our hands in our pockets when kids are getting killed with illegal weapons and we have the power to stop it.

Lots to unpack here but:

1. Why is kids being killed with illegal weapons so much worse than kids being killed with legal weapons that it necessitates U.S. intervention?

2. The problem with intervening, at least in the way we're "intervening" against ISIS, is that our intervention also kills civilians.

3. You have to admit that it's at least incongruous to argue that we need to intervene to protect civilians while at the same time arguing for us to close our borders to those same civilians, therefore shutting off a sure-fire way of protecting them

 

[MysteryMen]

but if we slap huge sanctions or embargoes, all good, right?

Yes. Sanctions and embargoes don't violate international law. If something is so bad that we feel like we need to break international law by attacking than we should feel commensurately more willing to allow victims to seek refuge in our country.