I'm ashamed of my country's reaction to all of this. I'm just going to come out and say it.

We are a selfish and cowardly country. Our president calls for humane justice to be served and the people respond saying "we don't want a war."

I've point out the irony before - there already is a war, and it's two years old. The idea that if we just decide to nothing then there "is no war" reflects a deep bias in favor of Americans over other humans beings.

America is a selfish, amoral country. Perhaps our founding fathers will be proved right about the danger of direct democracy if Congress can muster the courage to do the right thing amid the insults and threats.

What is so sad about all of this is that it is nowhere near enough. Our hypocrisy with respect to Libya cannot now be erased even by a full scale invasion. Syria has suffered two years of war and we chose to pretend it wasn't happening.

The rest of the world... no better. I am not British, Polish, Brazilian, Russian or Chinese, but if I were, I would say worse things about my government for shirking moral duty.

Of course I am depressingly familiar with such behavior from governments. But the day I let my familiarity suppress my moral outrage is the day I am morally spent.

"The idea that if we just decide to nothing then there "is no war" reflects a deep bias in favor of Americans over other humans beings."

Strawman like a boss. No one thinks there is no war in Syria. The issue is whether it's worthwhile to get involved.

The most important question isn't "did this happen". The most important question is "Will our proposed actions actually help?". I don't believe that military intervention will help the situation in any meaningful way.

Exactly, mendax. The only way we could really stop the conflict is to straight up invade Syria, occupy it, and impose a new government. For all the failures and faults of Iraq the American presence did prevent the kind of civil war we see going on in Syria.

I don't know about you, but I don't want to do that again.

It's not a strawman at all, I am pointing out that the fact that so many Americans are framing it in such a way reflects an underlying feeling: a war we are not in is no real war to us.

This is a disgusting outlook and I reject it in the most severe terms you can imagine. I shit on that. Fuck that.

@mendax

The number one question is not how it would affect the ongoing war, since it probably won't very much. The number one question is does the world collectively allow chemical weapons to be used in civil wars, or not.

It can get lonely defending international law, but it's a cause worth dying for.

so brave

"I don't know about you, but I don't want to do that again."

Why not, because it will hurt our economy? Because a few thousand Americans will die, be wounded, or suffer PTSD?

I would trade 5,000 American lives for 50,000 Syrians, or Chinese, or Salafist Muslims, or fucking whoever, in a heartbeat. A life is a life, and if we believe what we preach about human rights and equality it's damn time we acted like it.

If we keep behaving as if we matter more person per person than other people, then we are a morally defunct country no better than gay-jailing Russia or dissident-executing North Korea or woman-enslaving Saudi Arabia. We are chaff like the rest. We can rise above and pay the righteous price or be yet another disgrace to humanity - a paragon of greed, fear, ignorance, and selfishness.

"It's not a strawman at all, I am pointing out that the fact that so many Americans are framing it in such a way reflects an underlying feeling: a war we are not in is no real war to us."

I have seen nothing like that. I agree that people are dumb and think that a war somewhere else doesn't affect them, but that's a different thing from thinking it isn't a real war. Anyone who follows the news knows that it's a major conflict with over 100,000 people dead, and anyone who doesn't follow the news is an idiot on most things, not just Syria or other foreign wars.

This is not about me, this is about the repugnant reaction of my countrymen.

I've never felt so alienated from America in my life, although, I was too young to remember Somalia and Rwanda.

"I would trade 5,000 American lives for 50,000 Syrians, or Chinese, or Salafist Muslims, or fucking whoever, in a heartbeat. A life is a life, and if we believe what we preach about human rights and equality it's damn time we acted like it."

Well, most Americans would not. Virtually all Americans would not. And there's nothing wrong with that, really. A country is a little (a little) like a family. Would you really trade the lives of your mother and father in exchange for the lives of 50 strangers on the other side of the world. I know I wouldn't. I also wouldn't send American soldiers and airmen to die in a pointless war where their deaths would be in vain, and I think that's what intervening in Syria at this point would be. Maybe not two years ago or even last year, but now for sure.

I'm not saying they don't know Invictus. I'm saying they don't care.

I challenge you to prove to me that the American people as a whole give a flying fuck about Syria.

They don't even try to SAY they do. Much less act like they do. Everywhere you turn you hear "let them sort out their sandbox." "Just let them do their own killing." "Not another war in the bloody Middle East."

What the fuck is that. They are people. I'm fully aware of how far the world is from the way it should be if egalitarianism were truly practiced, believe me, but this is such a small act, such a basic thing - do not allow chemical weapons to be used on civilians.

If we can't even manage that then I don't even know who we are anymore. We stand for nothing as a country.

I'll agree that there's a huge amount of American Exceptionalism. That doesn't make my point any less valid.

Caring about the suffering in Syria does not automatically mean that you have to support American military intervention.

We don't, because we are sick of wars. If we intervene, that brings us into direct confrontation with Russia and Iran, the latter of whom has pledged to attack Israel if we intervene.

However, I agree with your last sentence.

"Well, most Americans would not. Virtually all Americans would not. And there's nothing wrong with that, really."

You are so, tragically wrong, and you have proved my point. Not that it's a hard point to prove.

I don't want to start insulting you personally so I'm going to call it quits today. But I am filled with disgust. I don't expect I have changed anyone's minds today. I don't expect I ever will.

What they teach you in school about America, about why America is great... we all knew in the back of our minds that it was a lie, but it is oh-so-clear now. We aren't worthy of ourselves. We aren't worthy of anything.

I almost hope that in 300 years there is a second, then a third civil war in the former United States and people are suffering by the tens of thousands and being riddled with disease and gas and a multitude of other abominable grotesque horrors, as the United Nations or China or the EU or whoever the fuck watches from afar and says "oh not another war in America."

Ethics count for nothing if not practiced.

For those who know this reference: today you, tomorrow me.

Good night. I hope you sleep soundly in your bed.

I jsut want to point out that although I think interventio nat this point would be a disaster, it's also somewhat inevitable. Obama has committed us to going in should it be totally clear chemical weapons were used. Plus, even if chemical weapons were never used, we would have to intervene if the conflict spread to Jordan or Turkey due to treaty commitments.

Due to poor decisions at the outset of the civil war, we are now faced with nothing but horrible options and terrible options.

Thucy, you are so, so mistaken about this. There is a touch of self-recrimination when I say that, because I thought the same thing in 2003. America's military power is not the solution to this problem. There is virtually no chance that American military intervention would make things better. There is a very good chance that it would make things worse. If you disagree, I can explain why that is, but you don't clearly lay out why you think helping one group of wanna-be dictators at the expense of a current dictator will save lives.

As to your larger point about America being great: America is at its best as a model, the old shining city on a hill. Killing a bunch of people does not further that. It will only leave dead bodies and anti-American sentiment.

Well said.

Thucydides, an American intervention could have the effect of turning this into a general Middle East war. What happens when we're in and Hezbollah shoots down an American jet? Do we intervene in Lebanon then too? What happens when we bomb and Iranian military post in Syria? What happens when Russia feels Assad is actually going to fall? What does Israel do while all this is going on?

It isn't so simple that sending Americans to die next to all the Syrians dying will solve that unfortunate country's problems. It's totally unpredictable what may happen, and it would even make things much, much worse.

According to Thucy, we intervene everywhere out of 'compassion' and await WWIII.

According to sbyvl, the internet is regulated because the NSA reads some emails.

De facto regulation. Now that people know that the NSA reads what they say, they will be very careful about what they say.

Does the NSA control what you say? Does anybody control what you say or view online? No. The internet is not regulated you moron.

"I would trade 5,000 American lives for 50,000 Syrians, or Chinese, or Salafist Muslims, or fucking whoever, in a heartbeat. A life is a life, and if we believe what we preach about human rights and equality it's damn time we acted like it"

That's all well and good, but you don't have 5000 American lives. You have just the one. Fortunately there is absolutely nothing to stop you getting on a plane, flying to the region, and taking an active part. Although in truth I think this would be a considerably less good option than New Orleans (although women love a rebel ;) ).

But the US really should take a stand against the use of chemical weapons. Whether it would help this particular situation or not is largely immaterial. The world is watching, and I bloody well want every little tinpot dictator out there to know that using weapons like them is a shortcut to getting your airfields turned to Swiss cheese and your command and control centres destroyed. Then, maybe, they wouldn't bother creating such weapons in the first place.

As things stand all they are seeing is that chemical weapons are a jolly good way of flushing cities of undesirables at relatively low cost. The UK has failed to make a stand because of the cowardly actions of Ed Milliband. If the US is also found wanting I fear for the future.

As much as I hate to say it, I largely agree with Sbyvl regarding internet surveillance.

This article seems relevant: http://blogs.swarthmore.edu/burke/blog/2013/08/30/suez-has-already-happened/

In an effort to mediate some of the tension (or what looks like tension anyway)... I kind of get what Thucy is trying to say. While I don't agree with the whole idea of just charging in and stopping these crimes with an invasion, I do share in some of his frustration. Granted sending more military would only make matters worse, and I believe Invictus had some excellent points, but I do think the rest of the world, the US included, could show a little more government activism in lines of challenging these acts of cruelty and using "peer pressure" so to speak in order to get these dictators to back down. That is what the UN is supposed to be for, but they are spineless to act and won't throw any of their weight around when it is needed. I stress the point of when it is needed because bully tactics are not usually advisable. I am an American and I do think the majority of people over here are aware of the conflicts in Syria, and the middle east in general, and they likely feel bad about what is happening to the people over there. Unfortunetly very few actually feel bad enough to do something about it. That is where I think Thucy's frustration is coming from as that is where mine comes from as well. It would appear, whether it is true or not, that Americans care more about the potential evils of big business, as could be seen in the Wall Street protests a while back, than they do about the very real evils going on in the world around them. I can't blame the people of any country for looking out for themselves as they guard their own interests like an individual would guard the interests of his own family. However, I strongly believe right and wrong should come before self interest. If we all, as human beings, cared more about each other than ourselves (as a whole b/c I know plenty of individual do) then the world would be a much better place. Of course I am only speculating and am calling for a change that may be impossible, but remember that 200 years ago no one ever thought non-whites would have equal rights. Then MLK came along and changed everyone's mind. Just some food for thought as I really am just speculating at the moment.

http://puu.sh/4fO2Z.png

@Bo_sox48, you know I honestly didn't know about the Monsanto Protection Act until I read your meme. Just looked it up now and I don't really know what to think of it...