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

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.

That was one out of...how many, again?

The US, iirc, does tend to be the one who takes the lead on things. In fact, that's part of why [relatively] recent other countries wanted the US to give up the lead*...Which the US did. It then took them forever to decide who should take over after that.

*Note: This was after the US was in charge for one part of the plan but mutual consensus.

Oh no, I agree that the US tends to jump in, but as an American I think we are getting war-weary and should really take a step back in the conflicts.

Politics is not my strong suit by any means, I would make a terrible politician because of all of the bureaucracy. I like things simple, make a decision and do it.

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.

I think these considerations are broadly present in most cases where the US would consider intervening, though. I think a lot of the logic, and the rhetoric, and certainly a lot of the policy concerning US intervention comes from a belief that it is possible to intervene effectively in countries in ways that cost relatively little commitment - a belief that is basically fantastical. I think interventions are usually far more difficult and costly than we tend to think.

I'm not quite a neo-isolationist or anything, but I do think that when we talk about interventions, we tend to assume that we're more powerful and more able to do things than we probably are. I think interventions are a serious matter, and if we're going to intervene, we better be really damn sure that it's something important, and we better be really damn committed to it. And I don't think that's the case in Syria and I don't think that's the case with most interventions the way they're talked about in Washington and in the media. I think these are not just complicated questions about a Syrian intervention; I think they are indications of something problematic in our whole foreign policy attitude.

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.

Oh please, that's not a US-specific thing. That's an "outside forces interfering" thing.

DA - I'd classify it more as "damned if you do, damned if you don't." If you don't intervene, people will cry out that there was a moral imperative to act and you failed. If you do intervene, then it will be cultural imperialism or somesuch.

It's the real life Kobayashi Maru - no matter what you do, you can't win it.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

[ SECRET POST #2440 ]

Re: I feel bad, but...

Re: I feel bad, but...

Re: I feel bad, but...

Re: I feel bad, but...

Re: I feel bad, but...

Re: I feel bad, but...

Re: I feel bad, but...

Re: I feel bad, but...

Re: I feel bad, but...

Re: I feel bad, but...

Re: I feel bad, but...

Re: I feel bad, but...

Re: I feel bad, but...

Re: I feel bad, but...