Syria

[Balta1701]

So what? I dont really get where you are going with this. You act outraged that 100k people are dead, then you turn around and say that bad things can happen with interference.

 

At some point you need to make a decision and stand by it. Bad things are going to happen, no matter what we do, no matter how good our intentions may be.

 

But you cant let the possibility of bad things dissuade you from doing what you believe is right.

 

Now that is up to every individual, if you dont think its right to interfere, thats your call.

And the decision we should make is to stay the f*** out of Syria and pump a fair amount of money into humanitarian aid to help the refugees. Hell, figure out the exact amount that would be spent on the bombing campaign and send that money; it'll save 20x the number of lives.

[StrangeSox]

There's always money for bombs, not so much for humanitarian aid.

[Soxbadger]

So we only save those who are fortunate enough to get out? Leave the rest to their own devices?

 

That just doesnt sit right with me. I dont believe its an acceptable solution. But I will admit that I am likely more interventionist than others, even if it is means intervening on behalf of people who may one day want to kill me.

[Balta1701]

So we only save those who are fortunate enough to get out? Leave the rest to their own devices?

 

That just doesnt sit right with me. I dont believe its an acceptable solution. But I will admit that I am likely more interventionist than others, even if it is means intervening on behalf of people who may one day want to kill me.

"Save as many people as you possibly can" sits better with me.

[StrangeSox]

Right, aid for refugees doesn't carry basically 100% guarantee of killing a bunch of civilians unintentionally with your humanitarian bombs.

 

My first instinct, like yours Soxbadger, is to "do something," go in there and intervene. If there was some completely neutral, social justice military force (lol what a contradiction there) that could go in, maybe I'd feel stronger about intervention. But we'd be going in with the US military, and we'd be going in for reasons related directly to US foreign policy interests and not out of genuine humanitarian concern.

 

We can always go back to the Allies' despicable inaction and indifference wrt to the concentration camps in WWII. We can point to Rwanda, Somalia and other tragic humanitarian crises. But for every one of those, we can point to foreign interventions going absolutely horrible for the civil population.

[Soxbadger]

If you want to save as many as you can, then you have to directly intervene. Humanitarian aid wont save the maximum amount possible, it just hopefully will limit the amount of casualties. And even then its no guarantee as military intervention could kill 1million people, but maybe 10mil would have died without intervention.

 

After WWII I believe that my people have an obligation to protect those from govts who can not protect themselves.

 

I know that most people dont feel that way, but sometimes you have to swim upstream.

[StrangeSox]

But that exact reasoning has led to horrible humanitarian crises in the past. Intervention is no guarantee of a reduction in the loss of life.

[Soxbadger]

A lot of things have lead to horrible humanitarian crises in the past. That doesnt mean you just raise your hands to the sky and give up. It means you try and do better.

[StrangeSox]

Bombing people has at least a 50/50 chance of getting more people killed than not bombing people. You can "try and do better," but that's the reality.

[Soxbadger]

Intervention does not necessarily mean "bombing" people. But even if it did and its 50/50, does that mean those people should be sentenced to death because we dont want to take a risk that more people are going to die?

 

I guess I just dont understand the logic. If you are into isolationism and dont believe that the US should get involved in other peoples business, I can understand that. I disagree, but I can understand.

 

But if you think the US should help, I dont see how you can say that our hands are tied because the possibility of our help may result in death, when by all accounts it seems that us not helping will definitely result in death.

 

 

[StrangeSox]

Intervention does not necessarily mean "bombing" people. But even if it did and its 50/50, does that mean those people should be sentenced to death because we dont want to take a risk that more people are going to die?

 

I guess I just dont understand the logic. If you are into isolationism and dont believe that the US should get involved in other peoples business, I can understand that. I disagree, but I can understand.

 

But if you think the US should help, I dont see how you can say that our hands are tied because the possibility of our help may result in death, when by all accounts it seems that us not helping will definitely result in death.

Both options will result in death. Historically, at least according to some research Balta posted, intervention (aka bombing, which is the only option besides ground troops) leads to as much as 40% more deaths than non-intervention.

 

The chances are at best 50/50 that bombing will kill less people than not-bombing. Why do you want to sentence the inevitable civilian casualties of interventionist bombing to death when there is no guarantee or even strong likelihood that the intervention will lead to less civilian casualties?

 

That is where I stand and why I can't bring myself to support intervention. I want to minimize civilian deaths and humanitarian crises. I see no evidence that foreign military intervention will do such a thing in a situation like Syria.

[southsider2k5]

Both options will result in death. Historically, at least according to some research Balta posted, intervention (aka bombing, which is the only option besides ground troops) leads to as much as 40% more deaths than non-intervention.

 

The chances are at best 50/50 that bombing will kill less people than not-bombing. Why do you want to sentence the inevitable civilian casualties of interventionist bombing to death when there is no guarantee or even strong likelihood that the intervention will lead to less civilian casualties?

 

That is where I stand and why I can't bring myself to support intervention. I want to minimize civilian deaths and humanitarian crises. I see no evidence that foreign military intervention will do such a thing in a situation like Syria.

 

How in the world can you actually project that? There is no way of being able to tell what would have happened if it was just let go. Even just thinking of a place like Rwanda where somewhere around a million people died, I can't see how you could project that 1.4 million would have died if there had been military intervention at some point.

[StrangeSox]

How in the world can you actually project that? There is no way of being able to tell what would have happened if it was just let go. Even just thinking of a place like Rwanda where somewhere around a million people died, I can't see how you could project that 1.4 million would have died if there had been military intervention at some point.

The same way any other counter-factual-to-real-world is examined. Obviously you cannot know for sure, but you can study and compare different situations throughout history in which there were interventions and which there weren't. Balta posted this link a few pages back:

 

http://themonkeycage.org/2013/08/27/do-mil...+Monkey+Cage%29

 

This is a challenge with any counter-factual research, but that doesn't mean it's impossible to do.

 

From the conclusion:

Supporting a faction’s quest to vanquish its adversary may have the unintended consequence of inciting the adversary to more intense violence against the population. Thus, third parties with interests in stability should bear in mind the potential for the costly consequences of countering murderous groups. Potential interveners should heed these conclusions when designing intervention strategies and tailor their interventions to include components specifically designed to protect civilians from reprisals. Such strategies could include stationing forces within vulnerable population centers, temporarily relocating susceptible populations to safe havens that are more distant from the conflict zone, and supplying sufficient ground forces to be consistent with such policies. These actions could fulfill broader interests in societal stability in addition to interests in countering an organization on geopolitical grounds. Successful policies will thus not only counter murderous factions but will explicitly seek to protect civilian populations.

 

If you have third-party troops on the ground that you believe both sides will refrain from attacking, intervention can protect civilian populations. Lobbing a bunch of missiles, which is the only thing anyone is talking about or considering, won't do that.*

 

*According to this paper. I'm open to any studies that suggest otherwise.

Edited August 29, 2013 by StrangeSox

[southsider2k5]

The same way any other counter-factual-to-real-world is examined. Obviously you cannot know for sure, but you can study and compare different situations throughout history in which there were interventions and which there weren't. Balta posted this link a few pages back:

 

http://themonkeycage.org/2013/08/27/do-mil...+Monkey+Cage%29

 

This is a challenge with any counter-factual research, but that doesn't mean it's impossible to do.

 

From the conclusion:

 

 

If you have third-party troops on the ground that you believe both sides will refrain from attacking, intervention can protect civilian populations. Lobbing a bunch of missiles, which is the only thing anyone is talking about or considering, won't do that.*

 

*According to this paper. I'm open to any studies that suggest otherwise.

 

So how does it account for concentration camps?

 

[Soxbadger]

Both options will result in death. Historically, at least according to some research Balta posted, intervention (aka bombing, which is the only option besides ground troops) leads to as much as 40% more deaths than non-intervention.

 

The chances are at best 50/50 that bombing will kill less people than not-bombing. Why do you want to sentence the inevitable civilian casualties of interventionist bombing to death when there is no guarantee or even strong likelihood that the intervention will lead to less civilian casualties?

 

That is where I stand and why I can't bring myself to support intervention. I want to minimize civilian deaths and humanitarian crises. I see no evidence that foreign military intervention will do such a thing in a situation like Syria.

 

As I said to Balta, how can you get statistical evidence about things that didnt happen? How can you know what the casualty rate would be if there was no intervention. You cant. You can only compare pre-intervention to post intervention. But that is inherently flawed as intervention almost always comes when casualties are increasing, it very rarely comes when casualties are decreasing. Therefore it stands to reason that there will be more deaths after intervention, because the conflict was escalating.

 

If they are comparing different conflicts, thats just a waste of time because they are unique.

 

And because historically intervention has saved lives. Its indisputable. Or do you think we should have just let the IRC help the Jews?

 

http://motlc.wiesenthal.com/site/pp.asp?c=...&b=394663#3

 

Because Im sure your aware ONLY 141k German Jews were murdered, so thats just like Syria, just send some aid and call it a day!

 

Sad.

[StrangeSox]

1) The paper looked at conflicts from 89-2005.

 

2) References to Nazi Germany don't seem particularly relevant because Syria doesn't have concentration camps and that wasn't about foreign intervention, that was open warfare between numerous nation-states.

 

3) It was an overview of the effects of intervention. You can probably come up with some unique scenarios, like concentration camps, where the conclusion would be changed. That's not the case in Syria, though, where we're talking about warfare between the national army and various rebel groups. We are talking about coming down and backing one side over the other because one side used chemical weapons (though probably both sides have in the past several months).

 

Why should I believe that intervention will reduce civilian casualties? I would really, really like to. I want fewer dead Syrians. I just don't think Tomahawks are the way to get there.

[Soxbadger]

How in the world can you actually project that? There is no way of being able to tell what would have happened if it was just let go. Even just thinking of a place like Rwanda where somewhere around a million people died, I can't see how you could project that 1.4 million would have died if there had been military intervention at some point.

 

Its just made up bulls***.

 

I hate to say it, but it is.

[Balta1701]

So how does it account for concentration camps?

Declaring a full scale war on Germany didn't stop that. In fact, it sped it up. They realized they only had so much time and so they happily diverted resources from the war effort, such as the trains, to make sure that work was done.

[Jenksismyhero]

I find it interesting that the white house was claiming that it was certain that Assad was behind the chemical weapons attack but are now backtracking (along with with the British). Why the need to rush that judgment before all the facts were known?

 

Edit: sorry, got my quotes mixed up. Obama said it was for sure, the various government agencies are saying it's not a "slam dunk."

Edited August 29, 2013 by Jenksismybitch

[StrangeSox]

Its just made up bulls***.

 

I hate to say it, but it is.

Why do you say that? You seem to be saying that you categorically reject any research of this type.

[StrangeSox]

As I said to Balta, how can you get statistical evidence about things that didnt happen? How can you know what the casualty rate would be if there was no intervention. You cant. You can only compare pre-intervention to post intervention. But that is inherently flawed as intervention almost always comes when casualties are increasing, it very rarely comes when casualties are decreasing. Therefore it stands to reason that there will be more deaths after intervention, because the conflict was escalating.

 

If they are comparing different conflicts, thats just a waste of time because they are unique.

 

You're basically saying that counter-factual research is impossible and worthless. I don't accept that.

 

And because historically intervention has saved lives. Its indisputable.

 

Interventions save some lives and take others. What is the evidence that the net effect is fewer civilian deaths?

 

Or do you think we should have just let the IRC help the Jews?

 

http://motlc.wiesenthal.com/site/pp.asp?c=...&b=394663#3

 

Because Im sure your aware ONLY 141k German Jews were murdered, so thats just like Syria, just send some aid and call it a day!

 

Sad.

 

How is Syria comparable at all to targeted genocide and open warfare between multiple nation-states like WWII? The comparison just doesn't hold up here. And, if you'll note, the Allies didn't really do s*** to stop the genocide even when they were bombing within a mile or two of known concentration camps. They could have very easily bombed the railroad tracks, but they didn't. They didn't intervene to help civilians or to stop the genocide. The Allies' conduct in that regard is actually pretty appalling. It's certainly not a good example of humanitarian intervention.

Edited August 29, 2013 by StrangeSox

[Balta1701]

I find it interesting that the white house was claiming that it was a "slam dunk" that Assad was behind the chemical weapons attack but are now backtracking (along with with the British). Why the need to rush that judgment before all the facts were known?

The AP published descriptions of some intercepts a day or two ago that made it seem like it was definitely government forces who launched this attack, but as soon as it was realized what happened the higher-ups were screaming "Why did you do this!".

 

Basically it seems like no one is in control of anything and it's entirely possible that Assad himself did not order the attack even though the use of chemical weapons by his forces is an absolute slam dunk.

 

That also should illustrate the difficulty of doing anything in response...how do you conduct a revenge strike in this case? You can't kill the people who launched the assault if they're lower level soldiers, you can't attack the weapons themselves without dispersing them and killing a lot more people, if you attack Assad's forces you're choosing sides so you better be willing to continue fighting on that side but we're not willing to do that.

[Soxbadger]

2) References to Nazi Germany don't seem particularly relevant because Syria doesn't have concentration camps and that wasn't about foreign intervention, that was open warfare between numerous nation-states.

 

You do realize that if it was today Germany would call the Jews "terrorists", "enemies", etc. Im not sure why it matters what the pre-text for killing civilians is.

 

If Germans said they were killing Jews for trying to overthrow the govt, then its okay? No intervention because thats just a civil war?

 

And so if Germany just used chemical weapons on the Jews in ghettos, that wouldnt be a problem either, because thats not a concentration camp?

 

This is going beyond absurd.

 

Either you protect people from regimes that kill them, or you dont. There is no "Well if the conditions are perfect then maybe well get involved."

 

That line of thinking is what led to more than half the jews in the world being eradicated.

 

ITS NOT OUR PROBLEM!!!

[Soxbadger]

How is Syria comparable at all to targeted genocide and open warfare between multiple nation-states like WWII? The comparison just doesn't hold up here. And, if you'll note, the Allies didn't really do s*** to stop the genocide even when they were bombing within a mile or two of known concentration camps. They could have very easily bombed the railroad tracks, but they didn't. They didn't intervene to help civilians or to stop the genocide. The Allies' conduct in that regard is actually pretty appalling. It's certainly not a good example of humanitarian intervention.

 

Exactly, this is why I wont let this happen on my watch. Because to many people like you just raise their hands to the sky and say "There is nothing I can do"

 

No there is something you can do, when you see evil, when you see tyranny, you stop it. Sometimes bad things happen because of that, but you dont just let the even worse things continue because youre afraid something bad may one day happen.

 

Now that is not to say the US should absolutely intervene in Syria. But if its shown that the govt is targeting and killing civilians with chemical weapons, Im not sure how much worse our bombing can make it, because chemical weapons on civilians is pretty outrageous.

[southsider2k5]

You're basically saying that counter-factual research is impossible and worthless. I don't accept that.

 

 

 

Interventions save some lives and take others. What is the evidence that the net effect is fewer civilian deaths?

 

 

 

How is Syria comparable at all to targeted genocide and open warfare between multiple nation-states like WWII? The comparison just doesn't hold up here. And, if you'll note, the Allies didn't really do s*** to stop the genocide even when they were bombing within a mile or two of known concentration camps. They could have very easily bombed the railroad tracks, but they didn't. They didn't intervene to help civilians or to stop the genocide. The Allies' conduct in that regard is actually pretty appalling. It's certainly not a good example of humanitarian intervention.

 

I think in your last paragraph you make the best argument of all for that research being pretty worthless. In there you are comparing conflicts that probably aren't really comparable, but yet the line can be drawn at one place, but not at another place historically? I don't buy it. You can conduct the same conflict with two different reactions to really see what the difference would have been.