Are US leaders hypocritical wanting to bomb Syria to save the children, contd, in thread

Are US leaders hypocritical wanting to bomb Syria to “save the children”, when they did nothing to stop the Rawanda genocide, the mass slaughter in Darfur, the war in Sudan, carried out an illegal war in Iraq justified by lies, subvert elected governments in sovereign countries causing many deaths etc etc?

Further, why is it the USA’s job to save the world from itself. Saudi Arabia is armed to the teeth with US weapons and has a lot of money- why can’t they do the job in Syria?

Were US citizens ever asked if they want to pay taxes to be the world’s policeman.

  1. Yes, obviously they are.

  2. You’re right, that is meant to be the UN’s role. The elected officials are in a bind though because they can’t get off-side with AIPAC (see MJ Rosenberg’s account*) They apparently are keen on interverntion in this case.

*AIPAC: A Lobby Without Parallel | HuffPost The World Post

No it just means we ought to have intervened in Rwanda and Sudan and not invaded Iraq. That doesn’t in any way reduce our need to intervene in Syria to prevent the violence. To use an analogy: suppose I saw a brutal beating take place in an alley but instead of calling the police or aiding the victim I did nothing. This doesn’t justify that when I next see such a beating take place I should again do nothing.
And the US is the world’s “policeman” because it has extensive logistical capabilities not available even to the militaries of other advanced countries plus the Saudis are reactionary fanatics who make Assad look progressive-do you really want them to shape the future of Syria (not to mention that Saudi Arabia does not border Syria).

Jesus fucking wept.

The USA is the rogue state: killing hundreds of thousands of men, women and children on false pretexts, avoiding the UN because it has no evidence, kidnapping and torturing by the thousand, incarcerating without legal recourse, propping up client regimes of all political shades … in I haven’t got the time or will.

It seems impossible there is a sentient being left on this planet in the 21st century who believes this utter nonsense: The USA has been a dominant empire, it does shit things to maintain its imperial status, this is how human civilisation has always been.

But you’re only saying that because of their long history of interfering in the affairs of other sovereign nations, usually on the wrong side.

Here is a nice summary of

Yea - but ‘Freedom! Yay!’. Or something.

Wait, is that the pretext? I thought the whole point was that America obviously wasn’t bombing Syria to save the children last month or last year, and still wouldn’t even be talking about bombing Syria so long as the children over there kept getting mundanely killed by conventional weapons.

It’s possible that those that want to intervene in Syria are hypocritical for not wanting to do so in Darfur and Sudan. I’m leaning toward yes morally but no legally. The use of chemical weapons is a red line in international law, not just according to Obama, and there were no chemical weapons against an organized opponent used in those two situations (that I know of). But international law doesn’t say anything about people’s suffering.

However, they are not the same leaders as the ones who did not stop the genocide in Rwanda: not hypocritical.

They are not the same leaders who subverted elected governments decades ago: not hypocritical.

It may have been more appropriate if you said it was hypocritical to want to invade Iraq but not invade Syria, or the opposite, but it’s not hypocritical to support both. They’re both military action.

Hey, only 127 to go!

Are the same US political figures who declined to intervene in Rwanda and Darfur advocating for intervention in Syria? I’m not sure that’s the case.

Anyway, ostensibly the proposed action in Syria is to help prevent the Syrian government from continuing the use of chemical weapons, which is deemed to be unfavorable to US interests. Same situation, supposedly, as Iraq, and entirely different situation from Rwanda, Darfur, etc. I’m not saying that US intervention in Syria is justified or desirable, but it’s certainly not hypocritical.

Yes to the OP.

If we really had concern for the Syrian people, we’d apply the resources we stand to spend on war to aiding the millions of refugees now flooding neighboring countries.

IMHO, we should be helping the displaced and letting the rest take it out on each other.


Oh dear. Time to take your pills please.

The USA might get it wrong and be a clumsy friend from time to time but mostly they are the good guys.

No. The action in Syria stands on its own or it doesn’t. One needn’t intervene in all conflicts in order to not by a hypocrite when intervening in one conflict. And here, as noted, we have seen the use of CWs, which really is a game changer.

Now, I am dead set against this intervention, but it’s not hypocritical for the US to do it.

Well, that’s it right there. As I’ve been saying in several threads, if bombs need to be sent Assad’s way, let the French or the Saudis do it. Hows about we Americans sit this one out?

I think most of us know the drill. Obama was elected to at least scale back that role, and he’s done a somewhat good job of it. He got dragged, kicking and screaming, into Libya. This Syria business is his first real mistake. If he makes only one, he’ll be doing pretty good if we grade on a curve.

Yes. Every four years, said citizens elect the Commander in Chief of the armed forces, also known as the President of the USA. If they elect a person such as George W. Bush or Barack Obama, then they’re voting to pay vast amounts of money for a military-industrial complex that gets involved in these sorts of conflicts. If Americans didn’t want to pay for bombing places such as Syria and invading places such as Iraq, they could vote for a President who didn’t do such things.

As for whether it’s hypocritical, it’s hard to avoid being hypocritical. All over the world, in various third-world countries, murderous dictators sometimes massacre their own people or others. In each individual case, the USA can choose to intervene or not. Some people will hate the USA each time it intervenes. Some people will hate the USA each time it doesn’t intervene. Some people will hate the USA each time it intervenes and each time it doesn’t intervene. There’s no way for the USA to please everyone.

Yeah! Who you got in mind?

Gary Johnson.

May I ask who were the people who objected to military aid for Rwanda and Darfur but are calling for it regarding Syria.

Maybe they could try not creating and supporting murderous dictators in the first place?

We didn’t create Assad, and he (and his dad before him) weren’t our buddies…they were in bed with the Soviets, which is why the Russians still love and protect them them (granting the Russians basing rights helps as well of course).

As to the OP, I think it’s a total strawman. We aren’t proposing to bomb Syria to ‘save the children’…we are doing it because the use of chemical weapons is proscribed under international law, and it sets a bad precedence to allow a country, especially a 3rd world country to get away with using the nasty things. There is, afaik, no realistic expectations that this is going to fix or solve the major issues in Syria, or be some sort of magic bullet. It’s a reprisal, pure and simple…and one that still hasn’t happened yet, despite the major frettage going on by posters on this board opposed to ANY sort of military action for any reason, whatsoevah.

Like who? Bashar Assad? We had nothing to do with that. It was the Soviets who helped put the Assads in power.