fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #2440 ]

[ SECRET POST #2440 ]

⌈ Secret Post #2440 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

__________________________________________________

07.

__________________________________________________

08.

__________________________________________________

09.

__________________________________________________

10.

__________________________________________________

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 065 secrets from Secret Submission Post #349.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

I really don't want the US to go into another war. I'm kind of sick of the "we're the world's police force' type of thing. I'd much rather we put funding back into the country, especially towards our stagnant economy or our crumbling roads/bridges/etc. I do feel bad, though, because I know those people need help. But then I think...why does it have to be the US? Why can't the UN just handle it and we just step back for once?

It's the moral duty of those with the power to prevent it to act.

But you're right the UN should take a more active role, it just won't practically happen.

I honestly don't think we'll have the financial resources to go into yet another war. And it would seem that a large amount of Americans do not wish to get into another war, either.

Why should the UN do anything when they know that the US will pick up the slack like it always does?

I would love for once the US to go, "Okay, UN, you got this. We'll do what ever everyone wants to do. But they have to go first." And just watch as everyone loses their minds because the US isn't leading the charge.

But that will never happen.

Except if you look at historical conflicts. Look at the Rwandan genocide where it was the UN forces that were in place and it took forever to gain control. I haven't studied the Rwandan genocide in years but I remember the US stayed mostly out of it and left it up to the UN and it was the French forces on the ground. I believe it was around 1994 though.

Re: I feel bad, but...

(Anonymous) - 2013-09-07 23:45 (UTC) - Expand

Re: I feel bad, but...

shortysc22 - 2013-09-08 01:58 (UTC) - Expand

What does "preventing it" mean, though? Are air strikes on Syria an efficacious means of preventing it? I don't think they are. Does the United States then have a moral obligation to put troops into Syria? If so, legions of young men and women are going to die, and legions of Syrians are going to do. Is that part of our moral duty as well? Is that the morally upright course of action for us to take? Is that really the honorable course of action?

These are deeply complicated questions to be considered, yes.

I'm just saying a blanket 'not our problem' approach is troublesome.

Re: I feel bad, but...

(Anonymous) - 2013-09-07 22:16 (UTC) - Expand

There does seem something a little unfair about assigning moral blame on the US if it doesn't intervene, while just accepting that internal dynamics mean that the UN won't intervene. That doesn't seem like an ultimately justifiable position.

I am assigning moral blame to the UN.

Or at least in a more general sense, at their complete inability to be able to intervene when necessary across the world.

I'm just aware that's very unlikely to change.

I feel like the U.S. just has the amazing Power To Fuck Things Up Even More.

Re: I feel bad, but...

(Anonymous) - 2013-09-08 00:36 (UTC) - Expand

Re: I feel bad, but...

(Anonymous) - 2013-09-08 08:09 (UTC) - Expand

You are not alone. Most Americans are in an "Oh, not this shit again," mode.

We feel sorry for the Syrians but, Jesus fuckin' Christ, can't someone else handle this for a change? We aren't the only superpower out there.

I think most people agree with this, there's just a few stubborn boys on top that haven't gotten the memo yet.

I agree with everything you say. And I also think the idea that we're going to be helping anyone by sending in air strikes on Damascus is deeply, deeply dubious.

I am broadly opposed to the US intervening in foreign countries at all, unless it's in very exceptional circumstances. I don't believe it's morally necessary for us to help every other country, I don't believe that we're able to do that - I don't believe that we always have the capacity to effect change, and I think that often our claims of moral obligation are complicated by considerations of interest and realpolitik and many other things. I don't believe we necessarily have the moral license to do it. And I think doing it is not really good for us - deeply harmful for our politics internally, more than anything else. I think it's the product of an imperial outlook, and I do not think that we ought to be an empire.

And you think attacking them will help them? Mostly it will just be killing a lot of innocent people and damaging infrastructure more than anything else.

Well, not doing anything hasn't been a great help, so far. Not that bombing them will help any more. It's a lose-lose situation...

I don't? I said I think they do need help, but I don't think it should be the US that deals with it.

I don't want the US to have any part of this at all. And I don't think military action is the answer, regardless of who's behind it. It won't accomplish anything at this point and can only hurt the people who need help now.

I'm probably a bit more biased than others though since I'm in the Army and part of thinking is that I don't want to deploy yet again to yet another place where we can't do any good.

I'm with you. Our schools are suffering, people are without healthcare, our minimum wage sucks, our roads are getting old and worn, and so much more. I'm so sick of such a huge percentage of our money going to "help" other countries. Especially when a lot of the things we try A) don't really help and B) are often resented by others.

I feel bad, but... I'm not as distressed about our war-mongering ways as I am at how bad we are at it now. We spent all that money and killed and lost all those people and have pretty much nothing to really show for it.

I agree. We do have things that could really use the money here, and we [as a people] seem to mostly be sick of being involved in wars. They do need help - but I wish, instead of dragging us into a war, it would be a multi-national effort.

[Though, I'll admit, in some ways it does remind me of a "We don't want you here!" "We needed help! Where were you?!" thing I heard someone rant about once.]

Yeah, iawtc. The US is already super tripped-up in power and we need to back the fuck off. In the end, it'll create more problems, and it's not a good use of our resources when we're already deep in debt.

If anyone needs to be policing other countries, it should be a supra-national entity like the UN.

Why would you feel bad? Most people in the States feel this way. Most people across the whole of the political spectrum feel this way. Because, for one, there's no reason to suppose US involvement can make things better and every reason to suppose that it can make things worse. For another--and someone is going to accuse me of being callous here, but I'm going to say it anyway--the Muslim Brotherhood is fighting Al Qaida. We should be making popcorn, not picking sides.

If someone could convince me that the situation in Syria absolutely was going to start WWIII if we didn't step in, and that stepping in could shorten/prevent it, then and only then could I get on board here. But we can't know those things, and there aren't really any other good policy reasons to step in here.

Why can't the UN handle it? Eh, the UN's piss uselessness is a large part of why NATO was necessary in the first place. In theory "put opposing interests on the same council with the power of veto so that the only time they'll take action is for a truly just cause" sounds great, but in practice it just means they never take action, even for a just cause.

It's a little bit depressing, that the war against Saddam under false pretenses has led to the US being, now that they have the same cause only for real this time, "warred out", so to speak. Wolf was cried too many times and now that it looks like the wolves are legitimately here for once everyone is just going to sit on their hands. The major American NATO allies also spent way too much in Afghanistan and feel about the same way.

Sure, it would be fantastic for Russia - or freaking China - to step up and say "we want to be the next superpower, we think the US shat the bed last time and we're going to show what good guys we are by moving in only now that there's proof of chemical weapons attacks against civilians". Chinese politicians making economic inroads into Africa have a favourite talking point that their brand of imperialism is "better" than Western imperialism - because it's friendlier, shares more, etc. - and this would be a good chance to prove it, if they mean it. Japan also has an enormous army, but for purely political reasons can never use it.

Instead you get a massive humanitarian disaster costing hundreds of thousands of innocent lives and producing millions of refugees, while the UN does what it does best - fuck all.

When "intervention" comes in the form of military action, the UN either lacks the ability to mobilize an adequate force, or else what force they can mobilize is wrapped up in so many rules and protocols that they can't sneeze without violating something. You know, even the UN's investigators going into Syria to determine if chemical weapons have been employed can't apportion actual blame to any actual party (even if they have evidence for it), they can only make the call whether the weapons exist or not. So the situation usually ends up with them unwilling to act, not acting in a timely manner, or their actions just lack the scope to effectively resolve a conflict. These are major problems that fundamentally exist in their very structure, but to fix them would take years. Meanwhile, the conflict is current and people are dying now. Yeah it sucks, but that's the reason no governing body is ever saying "leave it to UN", they know it won't happen.

Yeaaaah. If we want to keep helping the rest of the world - for any given value of help - somewhere down the line, the U.S. will have to take time off to breathe and bolster up our own resources, beyond just the military. I don't know if right now is the time to do that, but it will have to happen soon. Things aren't looking too hot for our near future as a major world power, at this rate.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only