America is selfish and cowardly?! After losing how many lives and how many billions in Iraq? Fuck you, warmonger.

Pick up a rifle and go. Now. Or are you amoral?

@Acosmist, I don't think he is necessarily trying to be a warmonger, but he defiantly could have made his point better and used more appropriate wording. Better to question from an objective point of view before jumping to conclusions. Now if he meant everything he said exactly how he said it than I can't defend that, but I'd like to promote a less hostile environment for discussion. You get more out of it that way.

How about you go thucy and fight for such an honourable cause instead of pushing your fellow American "cowards" in front. Who are you to say whose life is more valuable. Its always the dreamers like you that wish for all these "noble" actions, yet when put on the front line and see a fellow soldier get shrapnel up his ass you piss your pants of fear. Military intervention is not justified in Syria. Let the Syrians solve their own problems, Americans think they can play policeman of the world. Russia and China support Assad, the last thing America needs (besides the debt that would increase from yet another war) is hostile relations with the rest of the world.

And if thucy would know anything in chemistry, heshe would find out that sarin gas isn't so hard to come across, also death is death, it doesn't matter if you die from sarin or from a bullet to the lungs, death is death.

@ILN That's the exact thing Mr. CF and I were talking about earlier. It's hard to know who exactly released that gas.

Exactly, Assad is a well educated man, he would realize there would be grave consequences of he were to use chemical weapons. It's most probable one of his lowly generals gave out the order.

Either that or the rebels used them.

Thucy, last time you and I discussed ethics you called my position morally bankrupt. Naturally I disagreed, and I left you with a question.

You suggested that systematic morality is insane, and that actions should be evaluated on a case by case basis. The question I raised, is evaluated by whom. Unfortunately I never received an answer.

Now it my turn to call your position morally bankrupt.

I think the case with Syria is a perfect example of why your position on morality is insane. You disagree with the majority about the war, and suggest that they are acting callously and immorally. (I personally disagree, as I believe non-defensive wars are never justified.) This returns us to the point of the question that I asked earlier. You clearly don't believe the public is justified in evaluating the situation, because you disagree so vehemently with their evaluation. So who should be evaluating the situation? It appears that you believe that it is your right to judge the morality of the situation based on your beliefs, which is nothing more than judgemental tyranny, a position I will describe without hesitation as morally bankrupt.

The only alternative criterium that seems to be a likely possibility for your judgements on Syria is semi-objective utilitarianism, a position which I, like Kant, am comfortable calling immoral, because it enslaves the human will as an instrument for another.

What is tyranny is gassing civilians. Demanding the capable do something is not tyranny but decency. I will not be swayed by your ad populem - human lives are at stake and they deserve protection.

To those of you questioning my motives, know that if the US military ever did use its soldiers for actual humanitarian protection missions, I would be in it right now. It was a sore shock at age 18 when I did my research and discovered UN peacekeeping soldiers never come from the US after Mogadishu. Learning of Ghana's consistent contribution I became interested in their military only to discover naturalized citizens cannot serve. And so I chose another road to defend egalitarianism.

As I have said, international law is a cause worth dying for.

If you think the US military never uses its soldiers for the good of humanity - which it doesn't, you're right - then why are you advocating for its use in a scenario such as this one? Why can't we ask on the UN peacekeeping soldiers? You are admitting the truth that we're all speaking about and the only people that don't know it are the people that are in power in the military. Advocating for universal human rights is undeniably admirable but the US military is not the organization to turn toward for such things.

Just because a person has never done right in his life doesn't mean you stop demanding he do right today.

The UN has failed because of the broken security council veto system with an even more morally repugnant Russian state.

The natural customary law in international is worth protecting more than the half-assed legality of the UN.

I invite all of my critics to respond to this question:

Would you sacrifice 100 Americans for 1,000 Syrians?

Would you sacrifice 2 of your family members for 20 foreigners?

Would you sacrifice yourself for ten strangers?

Answer honestly. You know what I think the right answers are. I'll say no more. This is the source of my outrage. Syria aside, it has revealed the way Americans answer the questions above, and I am utterly disgusted.

"Demanding the capable do something is not tyranny but decency"
The initiation of violence is always tyranny. You have no right to demand anything of anyone, to suggest otherwise is to act from this farcical position where you determine whether any action is right or wrong, and insist it is a man's duty to follow your moral imperative. That is tyrannical.

And yes. Gassing citizens is tyranny. The initiation of force by the Syrian government is disgusting, and the citizens of Syria have a right to defend themselves from their government.

"Just because a person has never done right in his life doesn't mean you stop demanding he do right today."

You can't compare a person with the US military. The military has murdered people for seemingly no reason at all. And it's not uncommon; it's not just in the situation that Manning uncovered. And they have done these things on various "for the good of all" missions - Iraq and Korea come to mind. Vietnam could certainly be included.

'Would you sacrifice 100 Americans for 1,000 Syrians?

Would you sacrifice 2 of your family members for 20 foreigners?

Would you sacrifice yourself for ten strangers?"

Once again, Thucy, you are contradicting yourself. You see right through the American war propaganda. Yet you still, for some reason, believe it. I don't get that.

Sniping a man gunning down a crowd is not tyranny, it is obligatory. I would demand this of myself or anyone else.

There is not just a right but a responsibility to defend people under attack. Don't just say "let them defend themselves."

"Would you sacrifice 100 Americans for 1,000 Syrians?
Would you sacrifice 2 of your family members for 20 foreigners?
Would you sacrifice yourself for ten strangers?"

No, no and situationally dependent.
I have no right to sacrifice anyone except myself.

@box

Re: the questions, see "Syria aside"

Then you are a fool damian. By not making the sacrifice you are choosing to sacrifice ten times as many.

The United States of America has no national interests at stake in Syria at all. Syrians are slaughtering Syrians because their society is corrupt, decadent, and collapsing.

And I believe your last post sums up exactly why I consider you a morally repugnant tyrant. Unlike you I don't believe I have the right to play God and decides who lives or dies.

And I'm sure this establishes for you why you find my position so repugnant.

Frankly our positions are intractable. And I'm sure you find my position as loathsome as I find yours.

If you choose not to save the 10 times greater number you are playing God in equal degree. Sorry to be the one to inform you that every action you take imposes its effect on other human lives.

@Emac

The fact that our own national interest is what seems to be driving your calculation is exactly what I'm denouncing. Our national interest is irrelevant, what is important is human interest.

I acknowledge your argument. But dismiss it as absurd. Of course my actions have consequences for others.

To express this more clearly. Let's say the group of 100 and 1000 were both over pits of lava. Chances are I'd save the 1000. Because if I don't act both groups will die anyways. In your example I am striping men/women of their liberty and forcing them to die when they otherwise would not have unless the 100 sacrifices volunteer, that is murder. Letting the 1000 die is not the same as killing the 100 to save the 1000. Clearly you don't care for this distinction, but I consider it fundamental.

This conversation is over. I find your argument repugnant and I suspect you find mine equally so. There is nothing to be gained from continuing this discussion. My abhorrence for your position leaves me unable to learn from your perspective. A conversation where I cannot learn is a waste of time for both of us.

Hear! Hear! Damian.

Utterly disgusted Thucydides says. No I would not sacrifice 200 Americans for 2000 Syrians, because the 2000 Syrians died fighting a war that is crucial to them (or being killed in a struggle that is crucial to those around them). If you are a big enough idiot (which I believe you are) not to recognize that the 200 American lives are absolutely wasted on a war that means nothing to their country, families etc. then there is nothing we can do to convince you. Good luck on advocating for perpetual war, debt and death on behalf of causes that should mean nothing to us.

People like you disgust me.

completely agree with thucy, didn't think i'ld have so many people here with abhorrent views. a life is a life is a life. does the fact that someone was coincidentally born within an arbitary set of borders make their life more valuable to me than someone who was coincidentally born in another set of arbitary borders? just because you fell out of their mom in the same country as you doesn't mean they have a greater right to life than someone who fell out of their mom somewhere else.
I get that it's not in 'our national interests' all the time, but there is a basic moral duty, and in this hypothetical question that is all that matters. we have a common humanity, and it is too often neglected because people don't share nationalities. i don't want to repeat myself but we should care as much for someone born in timbaktu as we do for someone born in upper manhattan.

Oh and I don't even support intervention because I don't think it will save lives or is moral, this is just about the idea 200 of 'ours' to save 2000 of 'theirs' (inverted commas because the words there are disgusting).

And noone can say that it's murder or whatever, if people don't have to serve (I would say this works better if we have conscription but people can choose to be a teacher work in health service etc.).

But anyways, anyone that says you wouldn't, how about 200 americans for 200,000 syrians? or 20 americans for 200,000 syrians? 1 american for 100,000 syrians? 1 american for 1,000,000 syrians? or does the fact that this guy was born in san diego make his life worth more than a million people born in syria?

By the way can we rename Thucydides "white mans burden" already?

Idiots.

People are not dying in a vacuum.

People are dying to topple a leader they see as abhorrent or defending a leader they view as just and rightful. And then there are many collateral deaths occurring due to the fighting bw these two viewpoints.

Idiots,

200 Americans would die for no such cause only to "save lives" that are being lost. There lives are completely in effected by Assad and they could easily live normal happy lives far removed from the conflict. Their death is an especially perverse excess.