Syria

Anything not relating to the X-Universe games (general tech talk, other games...) belongs here. Please read the rules before posting.

Moderator: Moderators for English X Forum

User avatar
Usenko
Posts: 7856
Joined: Wed, 4. Apr 07, 02:25
x3

Post by Usenko » Thu, 26. Apr 18, 04:24

Even occasional military intervention would be okay if it had been well thought out.

Hint to the politicians of the world:

"Just shoot the bad guys" isn't a workable military strategy. There's always more bad guys than you have bullets, bombs or missiles.

Instead, military should be used when the objective is something like:

* Protect a specific group of people (I don't mean "Protect the Kurds" or "Protect the people who aren't ISIS"; I mean "Protect the concentration of civilians at map coordinates 34E." Specific groups, that's the ticket).

* Take and hold a particular site.

* Destroy this specific target.

* Prevent this specific group of soldiers from succeeding in destroying their target.

Note this: LIMITED OBJECTIVES. This is what we learned from WW1 - 100 years ago now!

Sending a military in with the job of "Fix this situation" is never going to work.
Morkonan wrote:What really happened isn't as exciting. Putin flexed his left thigh during his morning ride on a flying bear, right after beating fifty Judo blackbelts, which he does upon rising every morning. (Not that Putin sleeps, it's just that he doesn't want to make others feel inadequate.)

User avatar
Hank001
Posts: 1652
Joined: Tue, 21. Feb 06, 23:50
x3ap

Post by Hank001 » Fri, 27. Apr 18, 00:42

Mightysword wrote:
Funny seeing you guys debating about what is the US's best interest or Russian's best interest instead of what Syria's best interest. I'll tell you what it is, at least coming from the mouths of a few Syrian I spoke too: it would be nice that all foreign power get the **** out of their country, they will be more than happy to stay under another 100 years of Assad rule in exchange for this nightmare never happen, or waking up from it. :Shocked:
Observe wrote:
I agree
Would it suprise you... No it should have been evident. THE US SHOULD HAVE EXITED SYRIA LONG AGO. Why they aren't? That's the point I was trying to debate. It's already a no win situation like this:

We can't effectively fight ISIS without supporting Russia's adversaries; the Syrian rebels.
The answer to life, the universe and everything:
MIND THE GAP

User avatar
Morkonan
Posts: 10113
Joined: Sun, 25. Sep 11, 04:33
x3tc

Post by Morkonan » Fri, 27. Apr 18, 18:43

Mightysword wrote:...Funny seeing you guys debating about what is the US's best interest or Russian's best interest instead of what Syria's best interest. I'll tell you what it is, at least coming from the mouths of a few Syrian I spoke too: it would be nice that all foreign power get the **** out of their country, they will be more than happy to stay under another 100 years of Assad rule in exchange for this nightmare never happen, or waking up from it. :shock:
This is how history gets rewritten.

Since there are some major powers there, they get blamed for the problem. Well, we didn't start their Civil War, the Syrians did. And, for the past seven or so years, they and millions of others have been fleeing the conflicts that began with the Arab Spring. The unrest in Eqypt fueled by the "Arab Spring" resulted in Mubarak's stepping down from power. Syrians unhappy with Assad and his party, who had kept Syrian in state of martial law for the past fifty years, took heart and began protesting in earnest. After violent clashes and midnight arrests of protesters and critics, major portions of Syria's military defected to the side of the "rebels" and the conflict began in earnest.

Estimates of the death toll in Syria are around 400,000+ people killed.

Around five million refugees have fled from the conflict.

Nobody knows how many refugees have died due to misfortune, murder, trafficking, drowning in a vain attempt to seek refuge in countries that don't want them, starving or freezing to death. The millions that have been displaced and the strain on the region due to the refugee situation has fueled massive movements, reactions, restrictions, refusal of normal humanitarian aid, debate over EU humanitarian policies and even a resurgence of "nationalism" in Europe, with countries bickering over who should accept refugees, where they should go, or even if refugees should be friggin' rescued from drowning as they flee the conflict in boats that aren't seaworthy or can't cope with so many passengers.

The refugees have become prey for criminals, human traffickers, and anyone who doesn't mind profiting from another's misfortune. Their lives are cheap.

And, then there's ISIS/ISIL and a slew of would-be petty warlords and extremists trying to take advantage of the situation, hoping that the instability in what was, and still is, a country that is now "ripe for the picking" will present them with opportunities.

But, as soon as someone mentions world powers trying to step in to stem the flood of refugees and attempt to achieve some sort of stability, then those who love to remember the Age of Imperialism crack open their dusty history books and proclaim "they need to stop meddling in our affairs."

So, please, ask your contacts how well they were doing at solving the problem before anyone else become involved. Ask them how many coupons they can save so they can feed the millions of refugees that the rest of the world must now deal with. Ask them how the world should be expected to sit back and watch as hundreds of thousands of people die in an advanced, modern, country that had been under martial law for the past fifty years. Ask them what answers they will give to those who attempted to eek out a bit of freedom in the wake of the Arab Spring as it touched Syria. Ask them how they plan to deal with this problem without anyone else's help. Or, are they just hoping that some magic pixie-dust would suddenly "make everything alright" if every foreign power left Syria to continue to cough up blood and shout loudly in the dark as the monsters closed in.

Get out? How many countries are saying that, right now, about Syrian refugees? Is it "right" for them to say that to people who are simply trying to keep living another day? What about the extremists groups clawing their way towards the conflict, hoping for a tiny bit of power and a mailing address? Is that "right?" And, would it be right for us to just "get out" and leave Syria to destroy itself, becoming another Libya, Tunisia, Yemen...

I suppose the rest of the world should just sit idly by as the days of the Arab Spring fade into the Arab Winter.

The consequences of leaving Syria up to its own devices are too terrible to contemplate and no matter what eventual outcome prevails, many other countries will pay a price for their complacency.

User avatar
Observe
Posts: 5079
Joined: Fri, 30. Dec 05, 17:47
xr

Post by Observe » Fri, 27. Apr 18, 21:10

How about if we get the hell out AND stop selling weapons to anyone in that part of the world? Might the fact that the Middle East accounts for $62 billion in U.S. arms sales (2017) - far exceeding any other region, have something to do with the carnage going on there? Naturally, if we sell weapons to our guys, Russia has to supply their guys too and the misery multiplies.

No wonder there are so many refugees! How about making the arms dealers and producers pay for the refugee cost? If we did that, our $80 billion weapons industry would go from huge profit to huge loss in a flash.

User avatar
Morkonan
Posts: 10113
Joined: Sun, 25. Sep 11, 04:33
x3tc

Post by Morkonan » Fri, 27. Apr 18, 22:19

Observe wrote:How about if we get the hell out AND stop selling weapons to anyone in that part of the world? Might the fact that the Middle East accounts for $62 billion in U.S. arms sales (2017) - far exceeding any other region, have something to do with the carnage going on there? Naturally, if we sell weapons to our guys, Russia has to supply their guys too and the misery multiplies.

No wonder there are so many refugees! How about making the arms dealers and producers pay for the refugee cost? If we did that, our $80 billion weapons industry would go from huge profit to huge loss in a flash.
I'd be just fine not meddling in anyone's affairs or selling them weapons. But, then again, just because we have an awakening of common sense doesn't mean others will, too. Plenty of nations sell weapons to Middle Eastern countries. Why? Because they're so friggin' keen to use them, that's why.

There is a strong demand for weapons. So, there will be a strong demand for suppliers.

/sigh

You know what the crazy thing is? While reflecting on this and, obviously, getting agitated, I caught myself in an internal rant "Yeah! Screw those people! I'm tired of them always killing each other or declaring a friggin holy war! Screw them! In fact, we should just go over there and kick their asses for them so they'll shut up and stop.... Oh, I'm an idiot..."

:)

This is a "real thing." Plenty of people do feel that way. Of course, that's an initial reaction, a release of frustration, a quick "People who are dead don't cause you any more trouble" sort of animal response to continued anxiety produced by horrific world events.

And, that has to stop. It just has to. We've got two directions we can go, either we marry diplomacy and warfare or we refuse one of them. Which will it be, 'cause one ends in sage "dying by the sword" quotes.

User avatar
Observe
Posts: 5079
Joined: Fri, 30. Dec 05, 17:47
xr

Post by Observe » Fri, 27. Apr 18, 22:38

Morkonan wrote:I'd be just fine not meddling in anyone's affairs or selling them weapons. But, then again, just because we have an awakening of common sense doesn't mean others will, too.
Several scenarios:

1. We supply Syrian rebels with weapons and Russia does the same for Assad. This is the current situation. Result: the war continues and refugees abound unabated. This is no longer a civil war. It has become an international political game.

2. We stop supplying the rebels, but Russia continues supporting Assad. Result: Assad wins and the war stops. It won't be a permanent end, because it was decided by foreign interference (Russian support of one side).

3. We, Russia, UK, France et al. stop selling weapons in that region. Result: the war comes to some conclusion as most civil wars eventually do. It will be THEIR conclusion, not ours. I wager there would be far less refugees in this case.

Mightysword
Posts: 4350
Joined: Wed, 10. Mar 04, 05:11
x3tc

Post by Mightysword » Sat, 28. Apr 18, 02:34

This is how history gets rewritten.
It's less about history get rewritten, and more about having different perspective, and some lens are more ignorant and arrogant then others. It does not matter how many book you read, how many documentary you watch, how many people you talk to, you will never understand the thought and feeling of those who are losing everything they have in the fire of war. To these people, you can take all the pom-porous idea and be damn with it, they just want their life back.

Morkonan wrote: I suppose the rest of the world should just sit idly by as the days of the Arab Spring fade into the Arab Winter.

Exactly. Questions for you: did you really think everyone wanted the Arab Spring? Exactly how many people showed up in those rallies popping up all those years ago? Comparing to that, how many people are dying? How many people are being displaced? Have it ever crossed your mind to question how much of the population wanted nothing to do with the so call Arab Spring? Do you know that the only area that still experience a sense of normalcy are the cities that were in control of government force or fell to the government earlier in the war?

Note that nobody said that if foreign power don't do anything then things will just sort itself out and people just kiss and make up eventually, sunshine and rainbow and all that. Yes, we might have to witness a few monstrosity committed by the ruling powers but you know what ... would it have been worse comparing to what happening right now?

But, if it's truly we can not accept injustice, if it's truly in our heart we want to help the people there. Then fine, intervene, but do it properly. Do it Iraq or Afghanistan style, roll in the Calvary and settle the war in a month. Not this "we gonna bomb this target but we gonna let them know 2 hours ahead of time" or "we will provide equipment and advising but ..." bull crap. Don't trick yourself into thinking we're stopping any war, we're actually fanning it.

Retiredman
Posts: 795
Joined: Fri, 4. Sep 09, 02:35
x3ap

Post by Retiredman » Sat, 28. Apr 18, 04:17

1. We stop supplying the rebels.
2. Assad wins.
3 Within a year somebody/government assassinates(shoot, IED, poisons,nerve toxin) Assad.
Back to chaos..
You think a hero is some weird sandwitch and not a guy attacking a Xeno J with a kestrel.

Sir.. I said .. A guy attacking a J with a kestrel is the sandwitch.

User avatar
Morkonan
Posts: 10113
Joined: Sun, 25. Sep 11, 04:33
x3tc

Post by Morkonan » Sat, 28. Apr 18, 13:33

Mightysword wrote:...you can take all the pom-porous idea and be damn with it, they just want their life back.
I understand that. At least, I understand that some of them want their old life back. OK, fine... but it's not going to happen. No matter how much they wish it would happen, it won't. Does that make me a bad person for saying that? Would they be angry with me?
Morkonan wrote:Exactly. Questions for you: did you really think everyone wanted the Arab Spring?
Of course I didn't.
Exactly how many people showed up in those rallies popping up all those years ago? Comparing to that, how many people are dying? How many people are being displaced? Have it ever crossed your mind to question how much of the population wanted nothing to do with the so call Arab Spring? Do you know that the only area that still experience a sense of normalcy are the cities that were in control of government force or fell to the government earlier in the war?
That the only areas that haven't suffered the destructiveness of war are those that haven't experienced the destructiveness of war... Yeah, so?

I know not everyone wanted the Arab Spring. I'm sure that the activists were probably in the minority. BUT, it happened. It was real. Significant changes came about because of it. Governments were toppled, nations torn apart and people died.

So, it doesn't matter how many people didn't join a rally or take a side. It happened. It was an event. And, it had and continues to have a large impact.
Note that nobody said that if foreign power don't do anything then things will just sort itself out and people just kiss and make up eventually, sunshine and rainbow and all that. Yes, we might have to witness a few monstrosity committed by the ruling powers but you know what ... would it have been worse comparing to what happening right now?
It's difficult to compare things that are not like each other.
But, if it's truly we can not accept injustice, if it's truly in our heart we want to help the people there. Then fine, intervene, but do it properly. Do it Iraq or Afghanistan style, roll in the Calvary and settle the war in a month. Not this "we gonna bomb this target but we gonna let them know 2 hours ahead of time" or "we will provide equipment and advising but ..." bull crap. Don't trick yourself into thinking we're stopping any war, we're actually fanning it.
I agree that it must be done right. Though, there is little similarity with these events and others we've participated in or even caused in the recent past. I am for politically based solutions using good diplomacy. Yes, diplomacy backed by strength, if necessary, but diplomacy first.

Mightysword
Posts: 4350
Joined: Wed, 10. Mar 04, 05:11
x3tc

Post by Mightysword » Sat, 28. Apr 18, 20:42

Morkonan wrote: I know not everyone wanted the Arab Spring. I'm sure that the activists were probably in the minority. BUT, it happened. It was real. Significant changes came about because of it. Governments were toppled, nations torn apart and people died.
Do you notice how nonchalantly you are saying that? And it's because no matter what happens, it's not your house that's burning and people you know dying.

You know, I left my country because I don't agree with my government over ideology. It's basically a dictatorship, it's corrupted, nepotism are common, you can't say funny things about the government, and once a while you will hear some corrupted official criminalize someone to take their land ...etc... So I left.

When I came to the US, the narrative here make the painting look 10 times worse. Because the only things you can see and hear over here are the bad things I just listed, often with a healthy dose of sensationalize too. What you DON'T see or hear, is how one hundred millions people living their normal life.

It's not something you should be a stranger with American, after all there are some members here on this forum seem to think the US is all about gun violent, racism, and greed. Those are all true, but if they are the only angle to look at, then America is really just a shithole of a country. But ... you live here don't you? You know that's not true, because you know our country is more than that.

So, it doesn't matter how many people didn't join a rally or take a side. It happened. It was an event. And, it had and continues to have a large impact.


Again, see how nonchalantly you are spewing that? Do the people of my country wish for a better government? They sure do. Do they think it will be worth the admission price of hell? Absolutely not. When I came here, my compatriots, the people who moved to the US 20-40 years ago always talk about how the situation so bad they wish the US should come in, swept the current government off their foot and turn our nation into a democracy, just like that. You know, I hate my government with a passion, enough for me to leave, but I hate these compatriots even more. It's always the case the people who believe it's worth any price are those who will not be there to pay it.

Oh, and let's do a quick review of what the so called Arab Spring achieved:

- We have ONE good outcome: Tunisia where a meaningful change took place with minimum bloodshed.
- We have ONE neutral outcome: Egypt where things return exactly how before it started.
- We have a series of non-event in Saudi, Jordan, Morroco that was really just a one time protest thing.
- And we have THREE shit outcome: Libya, Yemen, Syria that descended into long period of civil war.

And you noticed something else? The three shit outcomes are the one with foreign intervention. Coincidence? Hardly. We keep telling ourselves that if we don't do something, it'll be bad while it's usually us that makes it worse. I hate Communism with every fiber of my being, but if I don't let my judgement clouded by that, objectively is Cuba a bad place? It's an example of a country that when isolated from foreign intervention, can get by. Is it an ideal place? No. But I bet it looks like heaven comparing to most place that had received the grace of foreign intervention in the past two decades.

It's difficult to compare things that are not like each other.
No, it's only hard because we don't want to, or should I say, lack the courage to do so. Maybe it's easier for you to compare if you look at it like this. Let's consider this situation with 4 people: A, B, C, and D.

We are A, and we see C bullying B. In this situation we have a couple of choices:

- Option 1: even though we feel bad, we decided not to intervene, because we know we can not go all the way, and thing can get even messier after we leave. Eventually, B will have to summit to C, and there is that.
- Option 2: we step in front of B and push C away. We tell C to stop it, or we will stop him ... by force if necessary.

Both of these options would have been valid, or at the very least, I would consider them options that takes some kind of bravery to do. Different kind, Option 1 is the courage to accept our inadequacy and to live with our guilt. Option 2 is the courage to step in and see it through. Sadly we took neither of these options.

- Option 3: so we feel so bad about B's situation that we want to do something. But at the same time we don't really want to get involve, and we know C has this friend D that we don't want to mess with. But still, if we don't do anything we're afraid our guilt gonna keep us from sleeping at night. So we smug in a sword and shield to B, give them some encouraging words "go get them tigers! I got your back". So B, empowered with this, decided to have a go at the oppressor ... and got beaten to a bulb, and perhaps even killed. But hey, now A can feel less bad because we tell ourselves that "hey, at least I tried to help" while trying to ignore the fact that we're probably the reason why B went and get himself killed.


I don't care about what you want to label it, tact, diplomacy option, whatever. But unlike Option 1 and 2 which someone brave will take, option 3 is nothing but a self-serving option reserved for the coward, and that's what we are. :shock:

User avatar
Morkonan
Posts: 10113
Joined: Sun, 25. Sep 11, 04:33
x3tc

Post by Morkonan » Sun, 29. Apr 18, 09:45

Mightysword wrote:Do you notice how nonchalantly you are saying that? And it's because no matter what happens, it's not your house that's burning and people you know dying.
A lot of people died in World War II. My neighbor's cat is black and white. My local grocery store stopped carrying my favorite dipping chips.

Any other facts you want plainly stated without embellishment.
..Again, see how nonchalantly you are spewing that?
What do you want of me? Must I expound upon every injustice, passionately embrace the suffering and torment of those that have experienced such things, post pictures of the horribly mangled bodies of children..

OR, are you just taking the opportunity to unjustly criticize me for making concise statements of facts.

"Today is Sunday."

Am I now to be blamed that I didn't acknowledge that a puppy got run over by a car this morning, somewhere, or that a child was probably just murdered?

Go build an argument for indignation with somebody else.
Oh, and let's do a quick review of what the so called Arab Spring achieved:
I'm not a big fan of what happened, either. But, that doesn't mean it didn't happen and that doesn't mean that it's likely that some people actually wanted some sort of good to come from it, does it?
And you noticed something else? The three shit outcomes are the one with foreign intervention.
Maybe things were already going pear-shaped before "foreign intervention" took place? Maybe things would have been a lot worse without it. A lot of people who have cancer watch television, so television probably causes cancer...
..is Cuba a bad place? It's an example of a country that when isolated from foreign intervention, can get by. Is it an ideal place? No. But I bet it looks like heaven comparing to most place that had received the grace of foreign intervention in the past two decades.
I hear Cuba can be a good place. Good healthcare, etc. It's poverty-stricken as heck and the people don't have a lot of the things we'd consider to be desirable. And, of course, a great many of them have chosen to leave and come to the US.

But, you think there's no foreign intervention in Cuba? It's got a huge tourism economy. Do you think that just because the US had decided to cut ties with Cuba that it just stopped existing in the world or something?

...I don't care about what you want to label it, tact, diplomacy option, whatever. But unlike Option 1 and 2 which someone brave will take, option 3 is nothing but a self-serving option reserved for the coward, and that's what we are. :shock:
I've already spoken against the tactics that were implemented in arming groups in Syria. I've said it was wrong and that I disagreed with it.

Mightysword
Posts: 4350
Joined: Wed, 10. Mar 04, 05:11
x3tc

Post by Mightysword » Sun, 29. Apr 18, 17:57

Morkonan wrote: Any other facts you want plainly stated without embellishment.
What? :?
What do you want of me? Must I expound upon every injustice, '
Uhm ... no? In fact, I would very much like you, or the US to do the exact opposite pretty please? That would be ice.

I don't think you understand what I'm saying here.
I hear Cuba can be a good place. Good healthcare, etc. It's poverty-stricken as heck and the people don't have a lot of the things we'd consider to be desirable. And, of course, a great many of them have chosen to leave and come to the US.

But, you think there's no foreign intervention in Cuba? It's got a huge tourism economy. Do you think that just because the US had decided to cut ties with Cuba that it just stopped existing in the world or something?
What ... the ... heck you even talking about here? I said intervention, not relation, did you think I was suggesting Cuba exists in a vacumn somehow? All I meant is even that country run by a dictator, or a madman as we American love to put it: it may be a communist, but it's a stable country, its people is poor, but its people are not dying or being displaced, its infrastructure maybe out of date, but it's not being shelled to the ground. And it's all thank to everyone stay the **** out of their country in term of how it's run.

Don't think it's hard to see. Sometime you just have to accept people do better without our "help", no matter how much injustice you fancy.

User avatar
Observe
Posts: 5079
Joined: Fri, 30. Dec 05, 17:47
xr

Post by Observe » Sun, 29. Apr 18, 22:52

I guess it comes down to whether we have a responsibility to protect people in foreign lands against the abuse of their leaders and what gives us the sense of entitlement to dictate the replacement of dictators?

User avatar
Hank001
Posts: 1652
Joined: Tue, 21. Feb 06, 23:50
x3ap

Post by Hank001 » Mon, 30. Apr 18, 01:23

Observe wrote:
I guess it comes down to whether we have a responsibility to protect people in foreign lands against the abuse of their leaders and what gives us the sense of entitlement to dictate the replacement of dictators?
Glad you added that "in foreign lands bit." :roll:
The answer to life, the universe and everything:
MIND THE GAP

User avatar
Morkonan
Posts: 10113
Joined: Sun, 25. Sep 11, 04:33
x3tc

Post by Morkonan » Tue, 1. May 18, 13:10

Mightysword wrote:....What ... the ... heck you even talking about here? I said intervention, not relation, did you think I was suggesting Cuba exists in a vacumn somehow? All I meant is even that country run by a dictator, or a madman as we American love to put it: it may be a communist, but it's a stable country, its people is poor, but its people are not dying or being displaced, its infrastructure maybe out of date, but it's not being shelled to the ground. And it's all thank to everyone stay the **** out of their country in term of how it's run.

Don't think it's hard to see. Sometime you just have to accept people do better without our "help", no matter how much injustice you fancy.
"...And it's all thank to everyone stay the **** out of their country in term of how it's run. ..."

Wat?

Are you insinuating that, because the US has held to its bargain of "non-interference" in Cuba (See "The Cuban Missile Crisis") that is why it is "communist" and "stable" and its people are "poor" but not "dying or being displaced" and, though its infrastructure may be "out of date" at least it's not being "shelled to the ground"?

Therefore, would you say that countries in which the US interferes are all non-communist countries without dictators which are unstable, with rich populations, but with dying and displaced peoples, yet with modern infrastructure that, unfortunately, have the habit of being shelled to the ground....

Cuba is not doing too badly, its people are not entirely poverty stricken, its has advanced manufacturing capabilities and its infrastructure isn't too terribly out-dated, at least compared to some impoverished nations one might think of, and it is, admittedly, not being shelled to the ground at the moment.

It is, however, being adversely effected by continued trade restrictions imposed by the US which, though they are criticized by many other nations, the US has not eased even with renewed diplomatic relations... which have been discouraged due to some really weird, possibly offensive, symptoms resulting from reported "ultrasonic attacks" against embassy personnel, prompting many to be removed.

Airplanes fly because they are in the air. Coffee is hot because it is coffee. Ice-cream causes people to drown. We can make any number of false assumptions based on correlations. You know this, being a statistician, IIRC. So, why insinuate that US "interference" causes all the "bad things to happen" and thus, if we assume the opposite in order to test your hypothesis, that all the "good things happen when the US does not interfere?"

There are plenty of other nations that have both good and bad things happen to them without the US being a major cause of either. We try to do good things, too, some of the time, don't we?

I am against isolationism, which seems to be a current trend that is being "spewed" by many pseudo-political groups. Why? The cause for isolationism seems to revolve around one primary thing - Doing things is too haaard, even if those would be good things to do.

I also believe that it is very much in the interest of certain other nations that the US recede from international prominence. And, I also believe that those "other nations" have their own interests in mind that have little to do with "doing good things" in international policy. I am not very far from saying that some policies of isolationism being promoted in the US may also be supported and reinforced by external forces rather than being solely an invention of public sentiment...

Bad things happen. But, we're not the sole cause of them, no matter how active we appear to be in foreign affairs.

It is not in the interest of any nation to see other nations destabilized. Further, the primary foreign policy of all nations is, and should be, the continued stability and predictability of other nations. Instability is bad, stability is good = First rule of foreign policy.
Observe wrote:I guess it comes down to whether we have a responsibility to protect people in foreign lands against the abuse of their leaders and what gives us the sense of entitlement to dictate the replacement of dictators?
Do we have such a responsibility?

It's a good question, isn't it? Should we not try to answer it for ourselves or haven't we already answered it?

(Deleted a bunch of stuff, for which you should be very grateful.. :) )

Do we have a moral obligation or even an ethical one to do... something? Presumably, that "something" would, hopefully, be to "better the lives of other human beings." Let's just say that is entirely true and that would be our primary motivation for doing something, should we choose do it.

So, do we have such an obligation or not?

If we pass by a pond and see a child drowning, do we have a moral obligation to rescue that child, even if it would ruin our new pair of very expensive shoes?

If we do have such a moral obligation, then don't we have a moral obligation to donate an amount of money equal to cost of an expensive pair of shoes in order to save the life of a child in an impoverished country who may die if we do not?

(A rendition of a famous moral question raised by Peter Singer.)

Post Reply

Return to “Off Topic English”