Posted on 04/09/2017 5:09:44 AM PDT by Kaslin
Most of the world is upset about Syria’s use of chemical weapons against their own people – and it should be. It was yet another act of evil, and Bashar al-Assad is a monster. The world will be a better place without him.
But let’s not pretend anyone is going to do anything to facilitate that. President Donald Trump’s “targeted” bombing of the airfield from which the latest chemical attack was launched might stop chemical weapons from being used for a while, but it won’t stop the slaughter in Syria. Because, although no one is willing to say it, the world doesn’t care.
That’s not to say people aren’t bothered. Children gasping for air is a visual that moves all but a few. Still, what happens in Syria to Syrians doesn’t affect the rest of the world in any tangible way. Therefore people are not moved to act. If they were, there would be a flood into Syria to join the rebels fighting both Assad and ISIS. As it is, millions of Syrians aren’t even willing to stand up for their fellow countrymen, as able-bodied men flee the country rather than fight for themselves.
Since those in the firing line don’t seem to care, the rest of the world isn’t willing to do what is necessary to prevent what happened this week from happening again. If it were, one of the roughly dozen previous chemical attacks would’ve caused action beyond bombing an airstrip. It didn’t.
The world likes to be seen denouncing monsters and their inhuman actions, but it doesn’t like actually doing anything about it unless forced. And the world is rarely forced to act in a meaningful way on matters of the actions of monsters.
The disaster in Syria is not the fault of the Trump administration. The Obama administration ignored multiple chemical weapons attacks by Assad because it was politically advantageous to do nothing. The media played along, casually mentioning the attacks happened – sometimes – and quickly moving on to the latest update on a Kardashian or some such distraction.
After his red line was obliterated by Assad, President Obama balked. He wasn’t necessarily wrong to do nothing; he was wrong to draw the line if he wasn’t willing to back it up. And he wasn’t willing.
Eventually he cut a deal for Syria to give up its “declared” chemical weapons, congratulated himself and went golfing.
They never cared about Syria, but they had to be seen as caring about Syria. The deal gave them exactly that. From a policy standpoint, I’m not sure that was wrong. Horrible things happen all the time. The civilized world can’t act simply because something horrific happened. But we should probably stop pretending to be surprised when they do.
When it comes to humanitarian crises that require more than money to address, we aren’t interested. People would rather text some number to donate a couple of bucks to a cause so they can feel good about themselves than do anything tangible. It’s a normal human reaction – if it doesn’t affect them directly, they’re not really wrong to.
By next week the world will have moved on to something else. But it’s not next week yet. The bombs just flew, so we have politicians and journalists mounting their high horses and patting themselves on their backs for caring and others condemning the action as unlawful. Everyone falls in line behind whatever suits their political needs, and nothing changes.
We – every one of us – have to pretend to be outraged by awfulness. We have to pretend to be angry over action or inaction. We have to pretend to be saddened by unspeakable acts. But the truth, deep down, is something different.
What happened in Syria is horrible, but it’s not unique. The world sat idly by when it happened in Syria before – as the bodies piled up in Darfur, as untold numbers were slaughtered in Rwanda and countless other places. Why should this time be any different?
When nearly 300 girls were kidnapped and forced into sex slavery by Boko Haram, the civilized world uniformly expressed outrage. To combat this evil act…a hashtag was launched: #BringBackOurGirls. Social media was flooded by people wanting to be seen caring. Soon after, people moved on. Most of the girls are still missing, and the world didn’t do a damn thing that mattered.
The world only cares to be seen caring; acting is of no interest. Do you think the Russian government gives a damn about a chemical weapons attack? That China lost sleep over genocide anywhere? It may be immoral for the world to watch genocide and not act, but it is the world’s default position.
If the great powers of the world really wanted to, they could wipe out ISIS and Assad and stop almost every atrocity. It would require a resolve it hasn’t shown and serious, unfettered military action. The current political climate of the West won’t allow it. Civilian casualties would be high and domestic support would collapse. We want to be heroes, but we want it to be neat. Like in the movies. But war isn’t neat.
If World War II happened today, the West would be passing resolutions condemning Germany and Japan, the Jews would be eliminated and nation after nation would fall to tyranny.
I don’t know what the answer is, but I know it’s not bombing an airfield or pretending a problem doesn’t exist. It lies somewhere in between and not with those who feel good about themselves for feeling bad for others. Maybe the first step is admitting that.
“If the great powers of the world really wanted to, they could wipe out ISIS and Assad and stop almost every atrocity. It would require a resolve it hasn’t shown and serious, unfettered military action.”
Pure bullsh*t
You going to fight?
Who do you think would?
The world could have had real peace, if, after WWII, the US had been liberal with nukes for nations that stepped out of line. We could have announced that any country that tested a nuclear device would have been nuked by the US. That means Russia, or China. Heck, it should have meant the UK too. Only one country in the world should have nukes and the primary responsibility of that country should have been to make sure that no one else ever got nukes.
Secondarily, we could have nuked a country that invaded across an international border (Saddam in Kuwait). No boots on the ground. Not for the US. Never. But we could have nuked the people who needed nuking.
The continental US would have been untouchable. Our defense budget could have been very small. And the world could have had peace.
-—what happens in Syria to Syrians doesn’t affect the rest of the world in any tangible way.——
Tell that to the raped women of Europe. Syrian men came to Europe and are like kids in a candy store...... just look at all the women!
The solution has long been known but Obama prevented the accomplishment.
Refugee camps in liberated Syria are the answer agreed on by the coalition. They will be accomplished
Refugees come in two types:
1) People who do not want to be refugees. They want their country to be a good place to live. Camps in Syria are a fine idea.
2) People who want to invade the West and impose Sharia Law. These people are not true refugees. They should be dealt with harshly. No room for them outside Syria. Maybe no room for them in Syria either.
Spot on.
How about locating refugee camps in Saudi Arabia. They have lots of available land. And that would be fair as the Saudis, along with their Qatari buddies, have financed ISIS & the various Islamist militias in Syria.
This is a “Trump cares” moment.
Let us start with this. The attack, if it happened, was NOT Sarin. You don’t rush in in hours to “rescue” victims from Sarin. Ask anyone ex military. Any Vet who took NBC or Combat Chemical Casualty Course (this should be nearly EVERYBODY in the military) can tell you.
Doesn’t mean there was NO attack. But when it is so easy to tell “fake news” why do they persist in claiming this.
What is happening in South Sudan makes Syria look like a church social. Where is the outrage about that? Guess no videos of 10 year old girls being gang raped have made it out to the world.
The pipeline will not be denied.
This is the reason they demand their woman dress in bee keeper outfits....the men can't control themselves. Muzzies being muzzies...what’dya expect.
Incompatible to Western civilization.
“How about locating refugee camps in Saudi Arabia?”
How are they going to vote democrat from Saudi?
It is indeed
Tell that to the raped women of Europe. Syrian men came to Europe and are like kids in a candy store...... just look at all the women!
Um... Europe is not in Syria. What happens between Syrians in Syria does *not* affect the rest of the world. The problem arose when the rest of the world opened the doors to Syrian refugees.
The second part are not really refugees imho, and those should not be allowed to come here under any circumstances
They are smart and know it is best to keep the trash elsewhere
Given the state of the art in those days (40s-50s) ... had anyone followed your plan the world would be awash in highly radioactive fallout, with the few surviving enclaves of humans struggling to find something to eat beneath vast dark clouds and subfreezing temperatures as the hundred year nuclear winter slowly encroached.
Neocon ramblings ain’t gonna fly with much of the base these days no matter how many pics of dead babies they manage to dredge up.
As usual, American blood is always spilled. Our children lose their parents to war, but we are told here that we are guilty of not caring. Europe has spread their cheeks for Islam and what they got for it is certain extermination.
Obama disguised American deaths by calling them UN troops. All of us know who the UN blood shedders are. Americans.
People all over the world are being terrorized and murdered by Islam, So we have to say “pardon us for not getting all wee wee’d up when muzzies kill muzzies”. Killing is what they do until everyone prostrates themselves for Islam. After that they tyrannize and murder those who step out of line.
I would guess many of those poor gassed babies were Christian. And lets get real, why waste your gas on women and kids instead of wiping out enemy fighters? Could it be that the other side uses those unfortunates as shields?
I disagree.
We nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki. They are fine now.
If, in 1949 we had nuked Moscow and in 1951 threatened to nuke London (London!!) I think the entire world would have stepped away from nuclear testing.
I see a maximum of three angry nuclear attacks. In the real world we had two.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.