Syria: a civil war (closed)

[Dayuhan]

Thank you for your opinion on the matter. As stated before you are so far out in left field on this that there is no point is discussing the matter further with you.

That may be your opinion, but can you support it? What situation since WW2 can you cite in which US intervention was (your word) required. Not justifiable, advisable, or desirable, but required

I really don't care what criteria you cite because quite simply nothing (in your opinion) would meet those criteria. No point in discussing the the matter further with you.

I thought initial intervention in Afghanistan was justified and desirable, though not required. Of course it was hopelessly messed up by the transition into "nation building" but that doesn't change my opinion that intervention was in that case justifiable and desirable. So there's one, which takes "simply nothing" out of the picture.

You may expect what you like but people passing through any discussion board are not required to answer to your beck and call.

Supporting your opinions with evidence and/or reasoning isn't answering to someone's beck and call, it's accepting a fundamental principle of rational discourse. If you're not willing to do that, don't expect anyone to take your opinions seriously.

In this thread it goes beyond arrogance and into the realms of stupidity in that despite my saying repeatedly that the US should not intervene in Syria I get asked why should the US intervene in Syria. Pointless to respond to that sort of insanity.

You previously wrote:

If I personally believe there should be an intervention in Syria (as I did in Libya) I am entitled to say so.

intervention is necessary and justified

You are entitled to say these things, of course. If you fail to say why you believe these things, don't expect anyone to take the opinions seriously.

Saying you think there should be an intervention in Syria but the US should not be involved is like saying you want to eat beef without a cow being killed.

Tibet 1951?

Or Vietnam '79. If you place China's minimalist history of messing along its borders beside the US history of global projection, though, what do you see? Do note, as well, that during China's surge in global presence and influence over the last 20 years there have been no military interventions, suggesting that intervention is not in any way necessary for a nation to gain global influence and prominence.

Unless you're prepared to cite some sort of evidence and reasoning to support the point, I don't think you can reasonably argue that the US is declining because it has not conducted enough interventions abroad, or that failing to intervene in any case has hastened or will hasten its decline. If you're going to link decline to overseas intervention, that opinion has to be supported if you want anyone to take it seriously.

So you missed the main issue with Libya then?

The "main issue" for who? MG is gone and the US isn't responsible for the inevitably messy aftermath. Goals achieved. Where's the "debacle"?

The world tends to watch the actions of the current US Administration and not listen to odd bod US citizens with different opinions.

I suspect and hope that the US administration will take its cue from the 56% of odd bod US voters who don't want intervention in Libya. The world will make of this what it will, as always.

OK... so like us against him (like in the school yard?)

I'm sure that even those who agree with you, were there any, would be interested in hearing the reasoning and evidence behind your opinions.

I suggest that that is a very ignorant opinion... suggest further study on your part.

I suggest that you've tossed out an unsupportable opinion and are declining to support it because you can't.

Fight? Can fear only be linked to a fight?

What else would there be to fear?

That's your opinion

Yes, it is. Look at the poll numbers cited earlier: 56% of surveyed voters "say the United States should leave the situation in Syria alone". Do you think that American politicians in an election year are going to ignore that? Don't you think that figure poses a more immediate and potent restraint on the temptation to intervene than some imaginary connection to Russia or China? If you think not, please say why.

Good, now lets have no more innuendo that the cost of these interventions are the cause of the US's current economic woes from you then, OK?

A cause, not the cause. One among many.

Look at your own words:

The current situation in which the US finds itself is as a result of a massive political leadership failure and accompanying inability to constrain domestic spending.

If domestic spending is an issue, than overseas spending has to be an issue also: spending is spending, and domestic spending has at least some residual economic benefit. The money spent on Iraq, Afghanistan, and the means required to prepare for additional such prospective escapades is not the sole cause of the US spending problem, but it's in no way chump change, return on investment has been minimal to nonexistent, and if spending is a problem this has to be part of it. On the ledger a dollar spent in Iraq is no different than a dollar to a welfare recipient in Detroit, except that the Detroit dollar is re-spent in the domestic economy and most of the the Iraq dollar isn't.

Yes you can't see it, won't entertain it... so there is no point in discussing it with you, yes?

If you believe that "intervention in Syria, or anywhere else, would put the US in a better position", why won't you tell us why? If there's no point in discussing matters with those who disagree, this place will get very quiet very quickly. Surely you cannot expect people to entertain your opinions if you're not prepared to reveal the reasons why you hold those opinions.