reply to post by Kurius
Well then your example was pretty irrelevant. What's happening in Syria is tantamount to abuse - not to someones quirky way of living.
You are not the police! Giving your kids guns to kill your neighbor or burning their house down, for example, will not work very well and look very
smart either. I guess that's the part they missed in the psychology book you obviously read? Why are so insistent you should be the savior? Who died
recently and made you King of your neighbor's house??? Seriously.
I read over this twice, and I guess you were being sarcastic, but it didn't make much sense. I guess you're trying to make a one-on-one analogy
between foreign interference in Syria's affairs and domestic abuse?
Let me restate what I said. My example of a father abusing his wife and children was to highlight the importance of interference. The effects of abuse
tends to be trauma; if you study trauma - as I have - you will understand that it is completely unreasonable to expect someone who is experiencing it
to just "confront" the abuser. They are frozen stiff; their nervous systems have gone all haywire, which compromises their ability to make
psychologically sound choices. Add to that the fact that the wife feels dependent, and or the children both respect and are afraid of their father,
and you got a pretty complicated scenario.
9 times out of 10, you need outside support, whether that be a priest, a friend, a counselor, or a family member, to interfere and help that person
get their life together.
Now, I am moving from this domestic example to international relations. Syria, as said, possesses chemical weapons; Assad's dictatorial rule is being
challenged by the mostly Sunni rebels. Therefore, Assad has the incentive to use chemical weapons against supporters of the opposition.
Here's where I detract from the mainstream view. Steven Pinker points out in the Better Angels of Our Nature that chemical weapons hardly qualify as
weapons of mass destruction. They kill no more people than conventional weapons do. They're considered awful mostly because of how people are
affected; they either die of suffocation, or suffer serious neurological, lung, skin, and other injury.
However, chemical weapons are still unfair. They are easy to deploy and their ability to contain an opposition is great. For that reason, and that
reason alone, I would support US response against Syria.
Finally, we need to recognize what kind of an anachronism Syria is. The present regime keeps Syrians in a 2nd or 3rd world atmosphere. They don't
appreciate the same freedoms we do - for example, the ability to freely visit any website online that we want (something many people here obviously do
not fully appreciate); the inability to criticize their own regime. The inability to elect a new government. Syria is a throwback to communism's
heyday. The world has moved on, and so should Syria.