The Moral Ambiguity of the Syrian Drama

reply to post by beezzer


Chemical weapons are not really that difficult to make. Over the next 100 years as the population continues to 9+ billion.

Clearly, problems with governments and their populations with increase.

Originally posted by beezzer
Why do we even need to send a message?

What moral obligation do we have to the rest of the world?

Especially considering our own track record as regards morals/ethics. This is, imo, one of the most important thread/dialogues going on ATS at the moment.

Blowback

Covert Action

Operation Mockingbird

A gas mask that is effective against:

Chemical Warfare Agents (CWAs) including:
Nerve Agents—GA, GB (Sarin), GD and VX
Blister Agents—Mustard and Lewisite
Blood Agents—HCL ( Hydrogen Cyanide)
Biological Warfare Agents (BWAs) including: Anthrax
Tear gases including: CN, CS, and OC
Price: $ 199.00

In 2011, it was estimated that a single Tomahawk cruise missile costs US$1,410,000.

So even with my poor maths i reckon we could send a hell of a lot of protection for the innocent people of Syria without any destruction and a great deal of humanity/goodwill sadly it will never happen because war and the profits of war is far more in line with the powers that be

reply to post by The GUT


America still subscribes to the old doctrine that it is the leader of the free world and as such should spread freedom and democracy where ever it can, that it can still affect change on a society with a thousand years of tradition, it hasn't worked in Iraq, hasn't worked in Afghanistan or Libya,Nigeria and it won't happen in Syria, and until it realises this and its position with Israel, Saudi Arabia , it's reliance on foreign oil and occupation of the Arabian peninsula we will see increasingly dead Americans,and Muslims. In juxtaposition the proliferation and use of weapons of mass destruction is by America a direct threat to the peace and security of it's allies in the region and therefore contrary to it's national interests,that if the opportunity isn't seized upon Chemical weapons use could spread very easily and quickly become out of control, which could warrant a nuclear response.

reply to post by all2human


America subscribes to the doctrine that in the case of a Nuclear strike from the Eastern Hemisphere. The only way Canada, South and Central America (as well as the Caribbean) will survive is because of US Defenses.

Keep in mind there are 1 billion people living in the Western Hemisphere so where does everyone else live???

Time will make that more apparent.


Any thoughts?

Here in the United States we have Baptist and Christians and to be honest they are not trying to kill each other, because of there differences. Meanwhile in the Eastern Hemisphere people pretty much kill each other on sight because of similar differences.

reply to post by beezzer

But do we need to commit an act of war simply for a trumped up accusation and build the effort with PHONEY moral outrage?

I placed this rambling diatribe in this forum because I wanted to focus on the authenticity of this "moral" issue.

This agenda is typical of the modes of persuasion. In the art of rhetoric, to convince someone of something an argument must have three things: logos, ethos and pathos. The mental imagery that arises while thinking about chemical weapons conjures thoughts of pain and anguish and a slow painful death. This imagery appeals heavily to the pathos, to the listeners emotions. Secondly, it appeals to a person's ethics, their ethos, and calls into question the listeners character if one doesn't act in the face of such atrocities.

However, this agenda lack logos, the logic, the facts and the state of affairs. To compensate, they rely heavily on the thickness of how they apply their pathos and ethos, hoping to bury logic under emotions and fear.

This is all an act of convincing.

If one learns rhetoric, one learns how it's used against him.

Originally posted by Kashai
Here in the United States we have Baptist and Christians and to be honest they are not trying to kill each other, because of there differences. Meanwhile in the Eastern Hemisphere people pretty much kill each other on sight because of similar differences.

Cant compare the west and the middle east. Look what happened they were nomads wondering the deserts. This is why clans meant everything to them. Then oil was discovered and we tried to drag them in to the 20th century while mentally they were still in the 10 or 11th.Now its the 21st and well there in the 14th or 15th. As a culture they havnt had the time to grow. think of Europe in the 14th feudal lords fighting to gain power and using religion for the basis. Well this is no different in the middle east now factions using religion to gain power. Eventually theyll grow up as all the stuff invading there culture becomes to intriguing to the young people.Id say one more generation and people will be asking why and thats what kills religions your seeing it start all ready they arent happy. Look at egypt it was the young that started it tweeting from colleges and universities.There movement was hi jacked but i dont think its over yet either.

reply to post by Kashai


Think it's difficult to compare civilisation's, America being a relative new-comer since colonialism and the ME the product of thousands of years of war, i would be hard pressed to find any definitive similarities other than we share ten fingers and ten toes, we love our children and just want to be left alone.

Originally posted by Aphorism
reply to post by beezzer

 

But do we need to commit an act of war simply for a trumped up accusation and build the effort with PHONEY moral outrage?

I placed this rambling diatribe in this forum because I wanted to focus on the authenticity of this "moral" issue.

This agenda is typical of the modes of persuasion. In the art of rhetoric, to convince someone of something an argument must have three things: logos, ethos and pathos. The mental imagery that arises while thinking about chemical weapons conjures thoughts of pain and anguish and a slow painful death. This imagery appeals heavily to the pathos, to the listeners emotions. Secondly, it appeals to a person's ethics, their ethos, and calls into question the listeners character if one doesn't act in the face of such atrocities.

However, this agenda lack logos, the logic, the facts and the state of affairs. To compensate, they rely heavily on the thickness of how they apply their pathos and ethos, hoping to bury logic under emotions and fear.

This is all an act of convincing.

If one learns rhetoric, one learns how it's used against him.

Deductive Logic requires knowing everything about a population, like a murder scene.

Originally posted by Aphorism
reply to post by beezzer

 

But do we need to commit an act of war simply for a trumped up accusation and build the effort with PHONEY moral outrage?

I placed this rambling diatribe in this forum because I wanted to focus on the authenticity of this "moral" issue.

This agenda is typical of the modes of persuasion. In the art of rhetoric, to convince someone of something an argument must have three things: logos, ethos and pathos. The mental imagery that arises while thinking about chemical weapons conjures thoughts of pain and anguish and a slow painful death. This imagery appeals heavily to the pathos, to the listeners emotions. Secondly, it appeals to a person's ethics, their ethos, and calls into question the listeners character if one doesn't act in the face of such atrocities.

However, this agenda lack logos, the logic, the facts and the state of affairs. To compensate, they rely heavily on the thickness of how they apply their pathos and ethos, hoping to bury logic under emotions and fear.

This is all an act of convincing.

If one learns rhetoric, one learns how it's used against him.

An interesting analysis.

You certainly did a better job od describing it than I.

Originally posted by The GUT

Originally posted by beezzer
Why do we even need to send a message?

What moral obligation do we have to the rest of the world?

Especially considering our own track record as regards morals/ethics. This is, imo, one of the most important thread/dialogues going on ATS at the moment.

Blowback

Covert Action

Operation Mockingbird

Regardless of the act, "who benefits" should always be looked at.

Its interesting that the real agenda was voiced on BBC Radio 4 this morning.

"Reports from Washington are suggesting Obama may be planning military action against Syria. The former vice chief of staff of the US Army, General Jack Kean, spoke to the Today programme's Justin Webb."

The full interview is here:

www.bbc.co.uk...

Its worth 15mins of your time. Particularly from the 7 minute mark but best to listen to it all for balance.

The intent is to degrade the Assad regime capability and empower the rebels to take the country over. Everyone here has figured that out, however its the first time i've heard it expressed in a MSM interview.

You have to respect the man for his honesty.

Highlighted for those that don't listen to Radio 4 and would otherwise miss it.

reply to post by Kashai

Deductive Logic requires knowing everything about a population, like a murder scene.

Deductive logic requires general premises that are considered fact.

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by all2human
reply to post by beezzer

 

The concern is that this(chem. weapons) will be the new and accepted way to wage war, if nothing is done.

edit on 1-9-2013 by all2human because: (no reason given)

Now I have to give you props for that. I hadn't thought of it in that way.

But if that is the case, then why wasn't Syria bombed when chemical WMD's were being made?
Why wait until they are used?

That was told to you before Beezer. In the other forum, by Mike himself.

At least someone got through, though.

reply to post by beezzer


hello beezer

lets throw a little more moral ambiguity into the equation...

reply to post by dragonridr


I am not comparing the west and middle east I am comparing the Western Hemisphere to the Eastern Hemisphere as a whole. Facts that present some interesting differences into how the populations in both
hemisphere's, deals with their problems.

Originally posted by Aphorism
reply to post by Kashai

 

Deductive Logic requires knowing everything about a population, like a murder scene.

Deductive logic requires general premises that are considered fact.

The facts are that all parties have admitted chemical weapons were used in Syria. In question is as who why this occurred. The President of the United States has gone before Congress in relation to this situation. The facts are that this is very unusual. I mean if memory serves that last time this happened was when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor.

Any thoughts?

reply to post by beezzer


Moral.

hmmm....

My daughter has cancer, as you know... and on friday evening they sent her home from the hospital with in home nursing care. They made sure she had a wheelchair and a shower chair so she could get around, and a hospital bed at home so she could be comfortable.

But they sent her home with prescriptions. She had medicaid because her husband doesnt make much money and the medical bills are outrageous so she gets medicaid. One of the prescriptions they sent her home with was for antibiotics. She has a bad infection and her body is too weak to fight it, so she has to be on antibiotics.

Her husband went to the pharmacy and was told medicaid was refusing to pay for her antibiotics... of course it was a holiday weekend so there was no one to straighten this all out with at the medicaid office, so she did not get her antibiotics because they could not afford them.

No one told me and of course they are adults (24 and 22.. ) so she did not get any antibiotics.... by Sunday morning her fever is spiked too high and she is vomiting because the infection has gotten the best of her and they rushed her to the Emergency Room and she is still recovering in the hospital, they figure because of this she will be another week at least if not two in the hospital...

Medicaid cant pay for antibiotics for an American citizen....

But we can bomb Syria.......I wonder what costs more?

Corporate America sends all their plants overseas so Americans are low on jobs; we sell what resources we have so we can buy the same thing we just sold from someone else; we put healthy Americans on welfare and give what few jobs are left in America to illegal aliens, which does wonders for another countries economy but not our own; rape and murder are now for thrill in this country.....

Morals..... we have wonderful morals

If it was me? I would go isolationist all the way, at the very least until we fixed our own country. We are the pot calling the kettle black and I call BS... they don't care about people, that's for darn sure!

reply to post by OpinionatedB


That situation has more to do with the people with whom they were dealing directly, and not medicaid.

You do realize that, right? It was their hardness of hearts; not the designed system, that allowed that problem to continue.

The system does not define what people do. It's a guideline. What people choose to do has to do with their ability to love.

Focusing on the system at home isn't going to fix our hearts. That's a totally different matter.

I am so sorry for you, your daughter, and her husband.

If I had been the one standing there, and "medicaid rejected the prescription", I would have paid for the prescription myself; if I didn't have all the money, I would have asked everyone to pitch in. If that didn't work, I would have stuffed them in their hands and told them, "it's on me, go away." And I would have gladly went to prison.

Better to help the dying and lose freedom than to have a dying conscience and retain freedom.