SavannahMann
Platinum Member
- Nov 16, 2016
- 14,540
- 6,817
- 365
- Banned
- #1
The reason I ask is the same one I had when President Obama was faced with this question. I honestly don't care. What happens in Syria doesn't have a damned thing to do with anyone in the US.
The truth about World War II was on the Eastern Front, there were no good guys. Hitler was a bad guy, and so was Stalin. Both were totalitarian dictators. Both were incredibly cruel to their own people, and those who were conquered. Both were brutal. And both sides committed atrocities. There were no good guys on the Eastern Front, there was only one difference. Hitler was our enemy, Stalin was our ally. Political happenstance just made it so the enemy of our enemy was to be our friend.
In Syria, there are no good guys. Assad is a bad guy, and the people fighting him are baddies too. The people in Eastern Europe couldn't tell you the difference between the brutalities and atrocities of the German Army compared to the brutalities and atrocities of the Russian Army. New management, same rules.
If you want to really slice the meat thin, you could argue that Hitler was a minuscule bit worse. But that meat would be nearly transparent to get to that level of thin. Even then it wouldn't be all that conclusive.
I don't think you can say that with Assad. No matter how bad he is, letting the Terrorists of ISIS or the FSA have control of Syria is even worse, if only marginally so.
So why should I care? Because people died? Is it far more moral to die from gunshots, concussion from explosives, shrapnel from bombs, starvation, malnutrition, dehydration, or disease? Children died before the gas attack in the war. Children died since from reasons totally unrelated to chemical weapons.
Dan Carlin has a podcast. It's called Hardcore History. One of his episodes is called Logical Insanity. He asks the question about Japan in World War II. Was it more moral to firebomb the cities than it was to drop the Atomic Bomb? He reads diary excerpts about how bad the firebombing was. How heartbreaking the reactions of the people were.
Dan Carlin is right. At what point does the suffering reach the limit? When does it reach ten on the scale, or eleven if you are a Spinal Tap fan? At what point has the population in a war simply reached the limit of suffering where nothing else could possibly make them suffer anymore?
I didn't care about Syrian gas attacks when Obama was President, and I voted for Obama. Why should I care now? My opinion then, as now is the same. The Russians are never going to pull out of Syria. Their only Navy base in the entire Mediterranean Sea is there. It would be as if our Naval Base in Italy was threatened, or if the Naval base in Gibralter for the British. Great Britain just had their territory of Gibralter threatened by the EU, and in response promised all out war to defend it. A postage stamp of a territory. Worth fighting for regardless.
So you outraged folks, tell me why I should care. Tell me why dying from shrapnel from bombs is somehow way more preferable to gas. Tell me why dying from starvation is better. Tell me why we should care.
The truth about World War II was on the Eastern Front, there were no good guys. Hitler was a bad guy, and so was Stalin. Both were totalitarian dictators. Both were incredibly cruel to their own people, and those who were conquered. Both were brutal. And both sides committed atrocities. There were no good guys on the Eastern Front, there was only one difference. Hitler was our enemy, Stalin was our ally. Political happenstance just made it so the enemy of our enemy was to be our friend.
In Syria, there are no good guys. Assad is a bad guy, and the people fighting him are baddies too. The people in Eastern Europe couldn't tell you the difference between the brutalities and atrocities of the German Army compared to the brutalities and atrocities of the Russian Army. New management, same rules.
If you want to really slice the meat thin, you could argue that Hitler was a minuscule bit worse. But that meat would be nearly transparent to get to that level of thin. Even then it wouldn't be all that conclusive.
I don't think you can say that with Assad. No matter how bad he is, letting the Terrorists of ISIS or the FSA have control of Syria is even worse, if only marginally so.
So why should I care? Because people died? Is it far more moral to die from gunshots, concussion from explosives, shrapnel from bombs, starvation, malnutrition, dehydration, or disease? Children died before the gas attack in the war. Children died since from reasons totally unrelated to chemical weapons.
Dan Carlin has a podcast. It's called Hardcore History. One of his episodes is called Logical Insanity. He asks the question about Japan in World War II. Was it more moral to firebomb the cities than it was to drop the Atomic Bomb? He reads diary excerpts about how bad the firebombing was. How heartbreaking the reactions of the people were.
Dan Carlin is right. At what point does the suffering reach the limit? When does it reach ten on the scale, or eleven if you are a Spinal Tap fan? At what point has the population in a war simply reached the limit of suffering where nothing else could possibly make them suffer anymore?
I didn't care about Syrian gas attacks when Obama was President, and I voted for Obama. Why should I care now? My opinion then, as now is the same. The Russians are never going to pull out of Syria. Their only Navy base in the entire Mediterranean Sea is there. It would be as if our Naval Base in Italy was threatened, or if the Naval base in Gibralter for the British. Great Britain just had their territory of Gibralter threatened by the EU, and in response promised all out war to defend it. A postage stamp of a territory. Worth fighting for regardless.
So you outraged folks, tell me why I should care. Tell me why dying from shrapnel from bombs is somehow way more preferable to gas. Tell me why dying from starvation is better. Tell me why we should care.
