EPTIraq & Syrian Civil Wars - Page 130
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Please guys, stay on topic. This thread is about the situation in Iraq and Syria. | ||
|
iPlaY.NettleS
Australia4413 Posts
| ||
|
Romantic
United States1844 Posts
On September 08 2013 07:23 LegalLord wrote: The problem with this entire theory is a lack of evidence that they actually used chemical weapons. You could make similar circumstantial evidence in favor of the theory that the rebels wanted to provoke US involvement. I'm not going to argue about whether they were used in the first place. I've spent too long talking to birthers, truthers, the religious, anyone with an opinion, you name it, to get fooled in to something like that. It is clear the government has been using chemicals weapons; August 21st was not the first time. The only reasons western nations are making a big deal of this one is because the sheer scale of casualties didn't allow them to ignore it like they did the previous attacks. I'm talking about the war situation and the huge importance of Damascus in the government's thinking; chemical weapons use is just a portion of that. | ||
|
Sub40APM
6336 Posts
On September 08 2013 06:46 Shiori wrote: Are you really using Soviet Russia as an example of fighting against the idea that people were better than other people? Wow. Ya, who else liberated Auswitz, the moral relativist? | ||
|
BioNova
United States598 Posts
On September 08 2013 07:23 LegalLord wrote: The problem with this entire theory is a lack of evidence that they actually used chemical weapons. You could make similar circumstantial evidence in favor of the theory that the rebels wanted to provoke US involvement. I just finished reading an article over at CNN where senators were show youtube video's vetted by the intelligence community. CNN has obtained 13 different videos seen by members of the Senate Intelligence Committee that depict the gruesome scene of an chemical weapons attack in Syria on August 21. The administration told senators that their authenticity was verified by the intelligence community. Many of the videos were previously posted on YouTube, but this collection of footage is significant because the intelligence community has given it a stamp of authenticity. The footage could be vital in the administration's quest to convince Congress and the American public that the U.S. must launch punitive strikes against Syria, former U.N. Ambassador Bill Richardson said. "That video will sensitize the American people that this isn't just an intervention, that this is a military strike to stop that type of atrocity", the former congressman told CNN. CNN cannot independently confirm the authenticity of the videos. But officials have a number of reasons as to why they believe they are authentic. The videos were shot from multiple angles, providing overlap, not just in what could be seen but what could be heard, the administration officials told the senators. Source So even the Senators get no proof... | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22345 Posts
On September 08 2013 06:16 Ghanburighan wrote: Whenever I meet a Moral relativist (I cannot prefer moral package A over moral package B, because it can be culture-dependent or we lack an arbiter or we lack sufficient knowledge, etc) I'm reminded of the following story by an ethics teacher. I especially dislike the argument that we aren't apt to judge. Of course we are. As human beings, we have been the faculty to make moral judgments, and we make them all the time. We use various different methods for it: gut feeling, conventions, formal theories, agreements, comparisons, etc. But, in the end, we take the information at our disposal, and we make the call. In fact, it's difficult not to make the call. You try impassively watching a discussion in which something you strongly believe in is discussed in the opposite way you prefer. It brings out an almost animal-like sense of rage. In conclusion, to make moral judgments is fundamentally human. That's why Kwark is exactly someone to make the moral judgment above - he is human. He might be an asshole (pace Kwark) but that does not detract from his right to make the judgment. We can naturally make different judgments, we can even argue against the judgment to try to sway his moral compass, but we cannot detach his right to make the judgment itself. WRT Syria, we all, and the global community as a whole, do need to make a moral judgment. In fact, a great many people (even Obama) have already made theirs. And this is how it is supposed to be. I think your misunderstanding my point (assuming you even partially were replying to me). I very much prefer our moral package over the Islamic one. And I'm perfectly fine with saying it, however I do not believe that gives me the right to shoot anyone who believes in a different moral package. It does not give me the right to force him to change his ways with the threat of death or harm. I can talk to him and try to convince him why my morals are superior but I don't have the right to impose it on him by force. As for your teacher example nice try of him but that doesn't work. An exam is not a situation of morals (well cheating being ok or not and such are but the the exam itself isnt). There are rules and unlike morality rules are much more clearly defined and regulated. You cannot fail someone because you feel like it. His work has to be insufficient and so long as it is properly argued he has no choice but to accept it. | ||
|
uNreaLTT
United Kingdom16 Posts
| ||
|
MarlieChurphy
United States2065 Posts
| ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
| ||
|
Deleted User 183001
2939 Posts
On September 08 2013 04:39 Meta wrote: I think it's funny that nobody gives a shit when 100,000 civilians are killed with guns and bombs, but when a few hundred are killed with chemical weapons, suddenly THAT's an atrocity. What a bunch of horse shit. It's called politics. Because the world overall has established chemical and nuclear weapons as being the epitome of atrocity, governments are able to use the news of usage of such weapons to freak their people out into action, even if say a dozen people were killed. I don't know about you, but death is death. Replace sarin and mustard gas with carpet napalming to achieve the same amount or more death, and no one will bitch (or at least we won't have anywhere near the same outcry we've witnessed lately) since it's in the same category as "guns and bombs". On September 08 2013 03:22 dsousa wrote: Alan Dershowitz wrote a column for Haaretz entitled, Obama: Get Approval from Congress on Iran now http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.545430 All media is propaganda at this point, but if you want an idea of the far right point of view on this situation, Haaretz is quite telling. AIPAC to deploy hundreds of lobbyists to push for Syria action http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-and-defense/1.545661 A Congressional veto of Obama on Syria would harm Israel and its supporters http://www.haaretz.com/news/middle-east/1.545616 AIPAC is getting involved? Looks like the US is getting involved in Syria then. I must commend AIPAC on their unbelievable stupidity though. They would replace a secular leader with some sense with savage Islamic fanatics, who as we know, love Jews/Israel and Christians very much (sarcasm)? (they're already killing Christians in Syria). It's almost as if AIPAC opposes Israel and Israeli interests. Even Netanyahu prefers Assad to stay. | ||
|
iPlaY.NettleS
Australia4413 Posts
Another reason some Hollywood progressives have been reticent to speak out against war in Syria, according to Asner, is fear of being called racist. "A lot of people don't want to feel anti-black by being opposed to Obama," he said Wow....really? So sad.... | ||
|
TheRealArtemis
687 Posts
On September 08 2013 05:44 maybenexttime wrote: The Chinese already did that, fortunately. I mean, free Tibet? That place was a backwards feudal slave camp before the Chinese took over... Kinda cynical. Some sources claim that close to a million people have died under the Chinese rule. The words Cultural and Ethnic cleansing/genocide have been used. People freaking burn themselves to death because of the oppression and torture the Chinese use on the population. not going to derail the thread, but you claiming that Tibet is better with china is ignorant. | ||
|
sc2superfan101
3583 Posts
On September 08 2013 06:46 Shiori wrote: That's because only adults are crafty enough to convince themselves that war is anything but a morally repugnant enterprise. This kind of absolutism (and the philosophy of equivalence that illogically precedes it) is probably the most dangerous floating around right now. To be sure there are far more dishonest and violent philosophies, but this one is quite unique in it's absurdity and it's rejection of intellectual restraint. Like most philosophies of it's kind, it is marked by platitudes and slogans being put forth as arguments: "War is repugnant!" Well, no one wants to argue with that! Only how absurd a statement is that? Of course war is repugnant. What does that tell us? What does that establish that hasn't already been established? Pro-war people always have at least one hidden premise presumed before the argument begins, so it's generally not worth debating it with them. I don't mean that critically, either; it's just that these people tend to make a particular leap in logic (i.e. from "X is committing a moral evil" to "it is no longer immoral to murder X") without explicating a coherent moral framework (it's especially weird if these people are, say, religious, since religions tend to eschew utilitarianism, which makes this kind of argument almost self-contradictory). Murder has a definition. And in no time, at no place, under no commonly accepted philosophy, has that definition ever included the violence that is inherent in committing war. First you must establish from what moral basis you determine that the killing of any human, at any time, qualifies as murder. Rather than take the "logical leap" that you accuse others of doing, you expect us to take your conclusion as inherently true. There is no hidden premise. The argument for the justification of war is as old as any other argument, and is more commonly accepted than almost any other. The onus is on you to provide reasoning for how over twenty centuries of reasoning is wrong, not on me to convince you that it is right. If you're referring to my statement about collateral damage still being essentially a moral crime, then I'll simply say that the following things are true: 1) Actions are judged (morally) within the context of the agent (i.e. you have to understand the situation and what you're doing) 2) Collateral damage is generally predictable 3) Collateral damage is not morally equivalent to accidents. I mean, whatever floats your boat, I guess. But you have to be pretty delusional to think that you can simultaneously claim the absolution of moral responsibility afforded by the accidental character of an action and plan this shit ahead of time. Your argument did nothing to provide that collateral damage is a moral evil, nor did it establish who is to be blamed for it, even if it is an evil. You left out the hidden premise: "It is immoral to kill people except by accident." | ||
|
Nachtwind
Germany1130 Posts
On September 08 2013 08:52 sam!zdat wrote: why are you guys arguing about ethics? This is just the cold war, it has nothing to do with ethics in all it brevity that is correct | ||
|
ETisME
12714 Posts
On September 08 2013 09:30 TheRealArtemis wrote: Kinda cynical. Some sources claim that close to a million people have died under the Chinese rule. The words Cultural and Ethnic cleansing/genocide have been used. People freaking burn themselves to death because of the oppression and torture the Chinese use on the population. not going to derail the thread, but you claiming that Tibet is better with china is ignorant. I would encourage you to learn the whole issues all the way from ancient China to modern conflict. They didn't burn themselves because of torture, it's the protest and trying to raise public attention and get their leader back into the country. The burning is viewed as high level of spiritual achievement such as Buddha feeding his own body to the starving bird. | ||
|
Elegy
United States1629 Posts
On September 08 2013 08:25 uNreaLTT wrote: Hello all, I Have been following this thread for days now, some very good discussion. I am sorry if this has been asked out right before but does anybody think this could actually trigger nuclear warfare between Russia and the US. No. There isn't a sane person in the world that thinks anything the US does to Syria could, at any point, cause nuclear weapons to be fired by anyone. Anyone who thinks or even mentions "world war 3" should be slapped in the face as well. | ||
|
DeepElemBlues
United States5079 Posts
As for your teacher example nice try of him but that doesn't work. An exam is not a situation of morals (well cheating being ok or not and such are but the the exam itself isnt). There are rules and unlike morality rules are much more clearly defined and regulated. You cannot fail someone because you feel like it. His work has to be insufficient and so long as it is properly argued he has no choice but to accept it. His teacher's example was perfect. These "rules" you speak of. They are a codified system of morality for a specific situation, are they not? Believing they are necessary and should be followed is an expression of a moral opinion, is it not? So if morals are indeed usually or always relative, then the teacher can indeed fail the student for any reason or no reason at all and not be held to be wrong. The teacher is just operating from a different view of morality and hey morals are relative. | ||
|
raga4ka
Bulgaria5679 Posts
On September 08 2013 07:40 Romantic wrote: I'm not going to argue about whether they were used in the first place. I've spent too long talking to birthers, truthers, the religious, anyone with an opinion, you name it, to get fooled in to something like that. It is clear the government has been using chemicals weapons; August 21st was not the first time. The only reasons western nations are making a big deal of this one is because the sheer scale of casualties didn't allow them to ignore it like they did the previous attacks. I'm talking about the war situation and the huge importance of Damascus in the government's thinking; chemical weapons use is just a portion of that. In the end all we are discussing are opinions here . There is no proоf of whom fired Sarin out there , other that it was used . Even the number of deaths are unknown . We just hear someone's versions , but the truth is unknown and we discuss what we personally believe in . I personally think that Assad had no reason to use chemical weapons , because he is winning the war anyway , and it makes no fucking sense to use it even more so when UN officials where there at the time . On the other hand the rebels are more likely to use it hoping for USA intervention . The facts are USA , Israel , Saudi Arabia , Qatar , Turkey wants Assad dead for whatever reasons . While Russia , China , Lebanon , Jordan , Egypt , Iraq and Iran support the Syrian government for their own reasons . Other then that , everything else here is just speculation and opinions as to who , why , when . As well as moral ethics , propaganda and shit as to why USA should or should not intervene . I personally think that USA have no business in meddling in other countries civil wars . What they are doing is openly declaring war on the syrian government which is against international laws , unless UN says so . They are not defending humanity's rights , they are just defending their own interests . And by the way i am not talking about the people , but the government . Everywhere in the world the public are against USA starting an other war , so i am guessing that they are not helping much with their "wars of freedom" . | ||
|
Polis
Poland1292 Posts
On September 08 2013 08:52 sam!zdat wrote: why are you guys arguing about ethics? This is just the cold war, it has nothing to do with ethics Cold war was against communism, this war is against what? In this war terrorist are supported or flighted against. Islamist are more often supported then not. | ||
|
Deleted User 137586
7859 Posts
On September 08 2013 08:25 Gorsameth wrote: I think your misunderstanding my point (assuming you even partially were replying to me). I very much prefer our moral package over the Islamic one. And I'm perfectly fine with saying it, however I do not believe that gives me the right to shoot anyone who believes in a different moral package. It does not give me the right to force him to change his ways with the threat of death or harm. I can talk to him and try to convince him why my morals are superior but I don't have the right to impose it on him by force. As for your teacher example nice try of him but that doesn't work. An exam is not a situation of morals (well cheating being ok or not and such are but the the exam itself isnt). There are rules and unlike morality rules are much more clearly defined and regulated. You cannot fail someone because you feel like it. His work has to be insufficient and so long as it is properly argued he has no choice but to accept it. Responding to the point about not being justified to go and shoot people because of your moral convictions, I do not think that's tenable in the long run. I can understand how someone thinks that intervention is way preferred over other things he believes in (such as the use of CW), but there always necessarily comes a point when your moral convictions force you to violence. You just take one of the things you truly believe ought to be the case and imagine a situation where that very thing is threatened. You either give your morals entirely or you fight to keep them. Nozick brought the famous example of defending democracy. One of the values of democracy is tolerance of opposing views. But if your democracy includes violent groups which believe in coup d'etat as a method of politics, you have to defend yourself (giving up your own tolerance to some extent), not to lose the moral system as a whole (through a coup d'etat) such that there will be no tolerance. The applicable case with Syria is the belief in the international order safeguarding our own future from certain atrocities, such as the use of chemical weapons (the US is especially sensitive to these, as US soldiers dying in large groups brings up a heavy back-lash thanks to a free media - unlike, for example, in Lebanon, or Sudan, or other such places). To ensure that CW are not used by the international community, force will be required in some unfortunate situations to pull countries back into the conventionalized moral status quo. If you say we are stopped from doing so because of moral rules regarding intervention, those are also conventionalized moral rules (most famously written down in the treaty of Westphalia, signed in Osnabrueck in 1648). But if we give up safeguarding the international moral system, we also lose the rules on intervention. Negating our efforts of defending it. And we end up in a new world where might makes right, even more so that today. | ||
|
maybenexttime
Poland5809 Posts
On September 08 2013 09:30 TheRealArtemis wrote: Kinda cynical. Some sources claim that close to a million people have died under the Chinese rule. The words Cultural and Ethnic cleansing/genocide have been used. People freaking burn themselves to death because of the oppression and torture the Chinese use on the population. not going to derail the thread, but you claiming that Tibet is better with china is ignorant. Maybe you should read about Tibet pre-Chinese occupation then and see who's being ignorant here. Tibetans have it tough now, but back then they were essentially slaves, mutilated for petty crimes like stealing some bread or such, on top of that. They may not be sovereign, but they are certainly far better off. | ||
| ||
