The violence is frequently sectarian in nature, with fighters claiming they act in defense of their faith, be it Sunni, Alawite, Shiite or any of the other sects that contribute to Syria’s religious landscape.
The perpetrators of atrocities themselves often use digital cameras or smartphones to photograph or film their acts of torture and murder, uploading the images to the Internet. These images and videos are used for propaganda, and their authenticity is often impossible to verify. It is very rare that a group of fighters from either side gives a professional photojournalist from a country outside Syria full and unfettered access to chronicle an atrocity as it unfolds.
Although this question may be impossible to answer with absolute certainty, I'm going to ask anyway. Is it possible that the increased worlds attention on Syria is causing more people to die?
And, consequently, what should we, the citizens of the United States be doing to stop it?
114 comments:
Nothing. It's not our problem. Just like the children being murdered everyday in Chicago is not our problem. I mean it is more of our problem than what is going on in Syria. Why not worry about that and leave Syria to the Syrians?
Outrage is entertainment.
That's the reason not to watch and mock those who do.
If the market disappears, so does the incentive.
Is it possible that the increased worlds attention on Syria is causing more people to die?
And, consequently, what should we, the citizens of the United States be doing to stop it?
If the problem is exacerbated by people looking, then people need to stop looking. That's an entirely different problem than the underlying cause.
Clearly this means we need to increase taxes here, and confiscate guns, and allow more unchecked immigration.
I'm super syrial, guys.
The Hawthorne effect in news.
Don't buy anything from China or Russia for the rest of the year. Buy American only.
Kermit Gosnell thinks they are all great humanitarians.
But when you get right down to it, I hope they all keep right on killing each other - they are saving us the trouble.
Is it possible that the increased worlds attention on Syria is causing more people to die?
Yes. The Syrian rebels (aka Al Qaida) know that the American public is easily led by the nose from the MSM. That the majority of people are "tender hearted" and will want to feel that they are able to stop bad things from happening. Not that there is anything wrong with wanting to stop bad things. The wrongness comes from using your raw emotions instead of using your brain and logic to determine 1. what is happening 2. WHO is doing the wrong deeds. How can we pick sides if we don't know the players. 3. what if anything is the solution 4. does action increase or decrease the problem.
So YES. It is creating more deaths as the rebels/muslim fanatics pose fake atrocities against themselves and commit REAL atrocities to alarm and inflame the tender sensibilities of the Western world.
And, consequently, what should we, the citizens of the United States be doing to stop it?
Nothing for now or maybe nothing ever. Unless we have a real and lasting solution we should do nothing as we will just make it worse. We need to mind our own business. War sucks. People die. History eventually sorts out the truth.
Just meddling to make ourselves look good or feel good is NOT a solution.
Widespread atrocity didn't start with modern video. Besides, the fact that you are not watching won't stop them from doing it, recording it, and posting it. They mostly do it for each other, not people in the west.
Why would intervening on the side of Al Qaeda be in our national interest? I know the pro-radical Muslim President wants it. I know his credentialed advisor with a rice bowl in a Syrian rebel group wants it. I know all the Obama worshipers like Eleanor Holmes Norton wanted it to make him look good. I know all the interventionist Rhinos like McCain and Neocons like Kristol want it.
But who in their right mind wants to get involved in this shit?
Let Manny be Manny.
Let the Arabs be the Arabs.
Let them kill each other.
It is none of our beeswax.
Why Syria? Why not intervene in Nigeria where Boko Harm is killing non-Muslims by the thousands? Why not intervene in Egypt and other Muslim countries where Christians are being killed by the tens of thousands?
Seriously, why Syria, other than Obama, Kerry , McCain and Graham say that America must do something.
Do what? Solve Syria's problems how? It's an impossible mess. And if anything, the O administration has made it worse by smuggling in weapons and using the CIA to train the so-called rebels.
Here's an interesting article from 2007 describing how new-elected Speaker Nancy Pelosi traveled to Syria against the wishes of the Bush administration for private talks with Bashir Assad. She assured him that Israel was ready to re-engage in talks with Syria. Utter bullshit. Foreign policy being attempted by an amateur who had no authority to do so.
Again, why Syria? There has been made no plausible case for intervention, other than "Sparky drew a red-line."
Syria is just another Middle Eastern country that Obama wants to destabilize so radical Muslim fanatics can come to power.
He did it in Egypt. He did it in Libya. Now it is Syria's turn in the barrel.
The Radical Muslim Rodeo Clown strikes again.
"Is it possible that the increased worlds attention on Syria is causing more people to die? "
Not likely. Stalin, Hitler, and Mao weren't putting on a show for foreigners. Similarly, Syrians are mostly just trying to eliminate and/or intimidate each other.
I'm a long term neocon because: I do care about innocent people in other parts of the world, I have seen the power of the United States to make and keep the world a better place, and the U.S. military is the greatest force for peace and human dignity that ever existed in history.
America has been exceptional for most of it's history, because we have done what is difficult and not just what is narrowly in our own interest.
BUT, I am giving up with the middle east. I no longer think we can help here in a lasting way beyond what we have done already. We liberated Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya, and gave Arabs their first true democracy in Iraq. They can take that and run with it or not, but the outcome is now beyond our control.
We simply don't have the resources available. Not because we don't have them, but because we now waste too much here at home due to our weakened values across the board, our sloth, and our personal greed.
In addition to that, the problem is just too difficult, too intractable, too cultural. It can't be changed from outside without killing millions, which may happen regardless.
I'm proud of what we did in Iraq and Afganistan, and I think it was necessary and successful, but it was only a start, an opportunity, and a very generous and expensive gift from our people to the Muslim world. In a similar way Israel gave them Gaza. Neither gift was deserved, but as is the nature of our people, it was given anyway.
The hope is that these things will someday be seen as the seed of a better middle east. If that happens, it was worth it, but it is not at all clear that the payoff will ever come.
When you've lost me, you've lost one of the last suckers standing.
We should now limit our operations in the M.E. to destroying threats to our interest from a safe distance, and aiding those trying to advance our interests and values there, but also from a safe distance.
I say this with a heavy heart, as someone seeing my nation now as quite diminished, of both capacity and will from what it once was. That is all caused from within, but I also must admit that the problems there are just too difficult, even for the most powerful nation that ever existed, because although we are capable of doing great damage, we still value human life too much to do the damage necessary to change things.
To clarify, I think we should be intervening, and I wish we could successfully, but I just don't think we can succeed. That hurts to say - to admit that we will stand back and watch this happen to human beings, to be the biggest dude on the block and watch my neighbor beat his wife and kids in the front yard without lifting a hand.
Is it possible that the increased worlds attention on Syria is causing more people to die?
And, consequently, what should we, the citizens of the United States be doing to stop it?
It is possible, but it still doesn't matter. The relevant questions are:
1. Can we make things better?
2. At what cost?
3. What are our responsibilites?
A1: No, we cannot. In the short term we can't even stop the killing without a full scale invasion, which no decision maker is advocating. In the long run replacing Assad with an Muslim Brotherhood - Al Qaeda partnership is likely to be even more harmful to the population than Assad, as we saw occur in Egypt.
A2: For a limited strike the immediate cost would not be outrageous in American lives, but it would be in Syrian lives and money. But compared to next to no benefit this still fails the test. A full scale invasion against Syria would end up a guerilla war against Syrian partisans, Hezbollah and the MB/AQ supported by both Iran and Russia. In other words a disaster.
A3: Virtually none. We're not an ally and never have been. The rebels are playing nice because they're asking for help, but these aren't moderates or pro westerners or good for their population. The dozen or so rebels who might make decent leaders will be overwhelmed by the thousands of Islamists the second the rebels win the war. No matter who ends up in control the Syrians will radicalize their population against Americans. It's inevitable amongst those who cannot rule to blame the scapregoat, and to Muslims we're it.
There are no good options in Syria. In fact the option set is so awful you cannot tell which is the worst. We should stay out of it.
War, as practiced before the rise of Western Civilization and the Renaissance.
"what should we, the citizens of the United States be doing to stop it?"
Nothing, as William Tecumseh Sherman once observed, "The more killed today, the less have to be killed tomorrow".
PS Lem, you're a good man to ask these questions, but we don't write the rules on this one.
War, as practiced before the rise of Western Civilization and the Renaissance.
"what should we, the citizens of the United States be doing to stop it?"
Nothing, as William Tecumseh Sherman once observed, "The more killed today, the less have to be killed tomorrow".
PS Lem, you're a good man to ask these questions, but we don't write the rules on this one.
We cannot afford Obama's wars. To busy wasting money on Obama's/Hillary's cronies,donors and fake green energy projects.
Well stated, Bagoh.
Are we saying we should go the way of great , not so great Britain?
Wont that radically alter our high standard of living?
"...to be the biggest dude on the block and watch my neighbor beat his wife and kids in the front yard without lifting a hand."
He's a bad man, Bagoh, but his wife's been putting rat poison in the casseroles she takes to the pot luck suppers at church and his kids are the ones setting the neighborhood pets on fire.
Can we have the goodies of power (the high stand of living) and not pay for it in some way?
I agree Rabel that the wife might deserve him, but the kids didn't choose either of them.
What bothers me about being hands off is the toll on innocent people. People that could be us if not for the magical luck of the geography of where our souls popped into being.
Most of the great atrocities endured by members of our species in the last 100 years could have been averted early and easily with the right decisive action before it became impossible or nearly so. I always fear we are passing that point again when these things happen.
The Rwandan genocide could have been avoided for instance with little cost, but even at some cost was it not worth preventing?
I know I'm safely just an armchair warrior, but I think as terrified as I would be, I would be willing to sign up for such a mission, with a cyanide pill in my pocket at all times. It's not like I have something better to do.
The Rwandan genocide could have been avoided for instance with little cost, but even at some cost was it not worth preventing?
Maybe it could have been, or maybe this is just something those in favor of intervention say now that it cannot be disproven.
But if true it was only true because the inhabitants weren't nearly unified in their hatred of America by 75 years of propaganda reinforced by the support of many Americans and their institutions.
I don't see technological capabilities making atrocities worse. It's just a new propaganda tool. Pol Pot didn't need cameras.
Bagoh, though I agree with you for the most part. But I think there's a law of unintended consequences at work here. The rest of the West is content with letting us be World Police. Reality. But we have to be fairly choosy about where we decide to take action. The sooner the US gets involved, the less the results are certain to be positive. I look back to WWII. Today, it seems fashionable to say the US should have been involved sooner, because of what was happening to the Jews. However, if the US decided to get involved in, say 1940 during the Battle of Britain, there would not have been a groundswell of support from the US populace. It would have been a completely different scenario. Sometimes the US needs to wait things out to really understand the situation, develop clear military objectives and gain the upper hand.
I thought Rand Paul's response to Obama's address was truly magnificent. Military action needs to have clear objectives (and a reason why America is being harmed) or its not worth doing at all. And as much as it hurts to see innocent people die, they'd be subjected to the same collateral damage if we were involved. But if we involved, they might just hate us instead of each other.
And, consequently, what should we, the citizens of the United States be doing to stop it?
Not a thing. It isn't our fight. How would we have felt if the Ottoman Turks had intervened in our civil war?
"Maybe it could have been, or maybe this is just something those in favor of intervention say now that it cannot be disproven. "
Rwanda, was unusually easy because the level of foreign involvement that would be working against us was virtually nonexistent, but that's rarely the case. Usually it's very expensive and protracted.
To be fair we have to admit that on the other side, those against interventions also can't prove that the ones we have done have not prevented a much worse situation. From Korea to Iraq, some assume that things would have been OK if we never went in. This is just unknowable. Possibly a serious world-changing conflagration was avoided. The worst in history (WWII) could have been avoided by the right intervention at the right time. We just don't know if we have done that in any of these past interventions either.
I would say that the worst events in history have occurred because of a lack of action by good forces when evil ones start their rise. Possibly a lot of bad has come from unnecessary interventions, but I think history comes down on the side of action, early and hard as the course of least suffering.
Regardless, the world doesn't seem capable of that, mostly because we are not.
The smart play would have been to let the Russians and Assad regime know that we wouldn't help the rebels in return for some favors. Two that spring to mind are quietly turning over chemical weapons and getting Hezbollah to back off. Or is it Hamas that the Syrians back?) Along with a guarantee that religious minorities won't be oppressed for their religious beliefs. Perhaps throw in a couple of other diplomatic or financial chits on our side to balance the scales.
But now that we've branded Assad a war criminal that kind of deal isn't possible.
America has been exceptional for most of it's history, because we have done what is difficult and not just what is narrowly in our own interest.
Like when we stole half of Mexico?
America is exceptional because we put forth the proposition that the government exists to support the people and the society they create, not that the people and society are there to support the government.
Incidentally, creeping legalism has destroyed that concept thoroughly.
Bagoh, I was just riffing on your excellent wife-beater analogy.
There are a few good guys in Syria and many innocents. But I don't see their situation being any better with Assad gone.
Without direct US military support in-country those good guys will have no chance of controlling the government and keeping the Islamists out of power. That's not going to happen so there are no good answers at this point.
We had a small window of opportunity during which the President could have restrained Assad's worst actions with a meaningful ultimatum. But Obama blew that with his half-hearted redline targeted-response calculus which precluded a more effective threat.
That ultimatum would have been along the lines of "surrender your WMD's or we will eliminate your air force, destroy your command and control and then send a flying robot to kill you and your family while you sleep and fuck the Russians if they don't like it."
Might have been worth a try.
Dust Bunny Queen said...
Reference: "Is it possible that the increased worlds attention on Syria is causing more people to die?"
Yes. The Syrian rebels (aka Al Qaida) know that the American public is easily led by the nose from the MSM. That the majority of people are "tender hearted" and will want to feel that they are able to stop bad things from happening ...
Ah...you've either read Vo Nguyen Giap as I've suggested or come to the same conclusions on your own.
Out of the cluster of insurgent groups, if they prevail ... there will emerge one in control and it will be Salafist.
Marshal, you forget to ask what kind of consequences are we likely to face? We toppled Qaddafi, and now Libya's economy is in ruins and the country is ruled by warring "militias". We did not consider ANY of the likely consequences of out actions there.
I would say that the worst events in history have occurred because of a lack of action by good forces when evil ones start their rise.
First, remind me again which side is the evil one in Syria?
Second, you said "I just don't think we can succeed " But what would success even look like here? A kinder, gentler Assad? Or a democracy we somehow make out of whole cloth with the support of virtually no one in Syria? Or something else?
"Like when we stole half of Mexico?"
By that standard we stole our whole nation, but that's just how the human animal has always formed nations. There are more Mexicans in my neighborhood than their were in the entire territory we annexed after that war. It was Mexico only because some Spanish governor drew it so on a map while downing a bottle of sangria one day, and nothing more. If you can't defend your territory, it's not yours. This is true of all species throughout all of history.
bagoh20 said...
Widespread atrocity didn't start with modern video. Besides, the fact that you are not watching won't stop them from doing it, recording it, and posting it. They mostly do it for each other, not people in the west.
I fully agree that is how it used to be, pre-1968 and Uncle Walter pronouncements.
Before that, the purpose was to intimidate the locals. After that the purpose was to both intimidate the locals and anyone else, the opposition especially, who listened to the new media broadcast propaganda. No need for huge rallies in a Nuremberg, so to speak.
Once engaged with modern information transmission the effect is as Pogo said...like the Hawthorne Effect, but more like a spotlight on a drunk at a football game...when he/she notices, they act out even more.
I recall letters from people I knew back home when I was half a world away...asking me if what they heard on television and read in newspapers could possibly be true. Fully 60% of it or more, IIRC, was utter bullshit. The US body counts were pretty accurate, however.
In those days ... ***redacted due to potential misinterpretation*** ... Now I don't care....they won. Their man is in the White House.
bagoh20,
I think your evaluations are correct. I'd add two emphases:
1. From Korea to Iraq, some assume that things would have been OK if we never went in. This is just unknowable.
While I think this is true, I think it's clear we're not dealing with a potential world war as we were in confronting communism. There basically nothing Syria can do to us except in the ME or via terrorism.
2. I think history comes down on the side of action, early and hard as the course of least suffering.
While often true there are certain characteristics which drastically alter the evaluation. In particulr we've seen that the combination of:
(1) significant foreign support,
(2) a largely hostile and militaristic population (in particular without an internal base to hand off a reconstituted government to), and
(3) the unwillingness of the US to expand the conflict or otherwise do whatever it takes to win,
will result in an unacceptable cost. It's clear to me all three of these characteristics are present in Syria.
No Bagoh - All historical territorial tribal land grabs by all other humans on planet earth are romantic and organic. It's only the evil Americans who do horrible things and steal land.
I learned that in our skoolz.
Calypso, I think you're right. It's a mess, but it is a mess in the way the entire middle east is, which is why I now think we can't accomplish much anywhere there. We can destroy things, and some things need destroyed, now rather than later, because those things won't stay there, and they won't let us stay out. We will going into big war in the M.E. eventually, whether we try to stay out or not. It's part of the neighborhood, and they know where we live.
We didn't "steal" Mexico. We fought a war, paid money and signed a treaty. Stolen Mexico is just a tired pro-amnesty argument.
you've either read Vo Nguyen Giap as I've suggested or come to the same conclusions on your own.
Never heard of the guy :-)
Military action needs to have clear objectives (and a reason why America is being harmed) or its not worth doing at all. And as much as it hurts to see innocent people die, they'd be subjected to the same collateral damage if we were involved
Not only does military action need to have clear objectives and a plan with a vision of what the end result will (hopefully) be.....we also need to have a clear REASON to go to war. Going to war to just show up because you drew an arbitrary line in the sand, make some sort of chest pounding display and then ....what?
Unless you plan to WIN and control the outcome, there is no reason to go to war.
In addition to not having a clear plan or vision, we have no clear idea of WHO these player in the field actually are.
I don't know about you guys, but I don't pick sides in a bar fight unless I know who is fighting and what they are fighting about. It is better to take your drink to a side table and keep out of the way until you know better.....or just until the whole thing blows over. Right now, I have no idea what the fight is about and who is fighting and who is the "good guy" or who is the "bad guy". Maybe they are all bad guys in which case.....pour me another round and I will sit quietly in the corner and wait until they eliminate each other from the bar.
By that standard we stole our whole nation, but that's just how the human animal has always formed nations.
Yeah, but we marched into Mexico, down into Monterrey and Mexico City, and forced them to give it up. This wasn't like the Pilgrims and Cavaliers finding what to their eyes) was a largely unoccupied land. That was two modern nation-states going at it, with the stronger taking a good chunk of the weaker.
My point is that THAT wasn't a case of us doing the tough, right thing instead of the easy, selfish thing.
By that standard we stole our whole nation....
Actually, yes, that is it exactly. I've got English and German ancestors from these lands that came here before the War for Independence. And they came here and took stuff from other peoples. They eventually decided they liked the ideas of some radical thinkers from the old countries, and did something about it. But the beginnings weren't completely noble. Nor was the middle, and certainly he cutrrent era.
Just remember, that after our crusade in Europe, we decided to let Stalin keep half of it. And then we completely folded on China's teeming millions. Not much nobility in that, especially since we were the ones carrying the only stick that really mattered at the time.
Icepick said...
Marshal, you forget to ask what kind of consequences are we likely to face?
I tried to cover this two different ways, "can we make things better" and "at what cost".
It seems to me we cannot improve things at all except by completely taking over the country and installing and supporting a government. Even then that government will only last as long as we're there, and there's a limit to how long America will stay. We could stay there a decade and a year after we left the Islamists would be in charge. Ten thousand dead Americans and the Islamists still end up in control? No thanks.
Pogo said...
Clearly this means we need to increase taxes here, and confiscate guns, and allow more unchecked immigration.
I'm super syrial, guys.
Oh, now I know why Urkel wants to confiscate guns here in the US. He needs the inventory to send to Super Syrial Land.
We didn't "steal" Mexico. We fought a war, paid money and signed a treaty. Stolen Mexico is just a tired pro-amnesty argument.
Well, I'm anti-amnesty. But the war was fomented solely for the purpose of stealing a large chunk of that country, and the payment was just Americans either showing off their wealth or assuaging their guilt. But we stole it.
Incidentally, if you want to argue the counter-side of that, you should read up on US Grant, because he basically held the position that the whole affair was a disgrace for America.
Personally, I am retro-actively in favor of stealing that half of Mexico. Pretty much have been since I was old enough to read up on it. Ours was an ambitious, vigorous people, and the Mexican government and people weren't doing a whole lot with it. But I am not working under the illusion that it was anything other than a basic power move, whether we gave the Mexicans money for it afterwards or not. You can leave money on a rape victim's nightstand, but that doesn't make you merely a john, and it doesn't make her a whore. And it certainly doesn't excuse the rape.
Icepick said...
Like when we stole half of Mexico?
And made it a better place? Yup.
Here is foolproof test.
Draw another line.
"It has developed the International Community ®™ is in disagreement about making military strikes against chemical weapons target. However, if we start seeing acts of barbarism such as increased stonings of adulterers and gays, obviously our trigonometry will change"
Then see if reports of stonings increase, and if they do test again.
"It has developed that the Republican led Congress has blocked action targeting increased stonings due to their own war on women and hatred of gays, and the nternational Community ®™ is kind of busy right now, but it is easy for me to say that if we start getting reports of fighters standing on their heads in piles of goat poo, well obviously, our geometry will change."
Then see if reports of... another test.
"It's clear that if... are seen doing the chicken dance and throwing lemon pies... our algebra will change."
Icepick is also saying that the Mexicans stole Mexico from the Spanish and the Spanish stole it from the Indians.
Mexicans are predominantly Indian.
I'm also saying that this process won't stop, and trying to stop it is silly. We should be looking out for our own interests. Which is why we should say to Hell with the ME and SA and just invade Canada and the Bahamas. Canada for the vast natural resources and a smart and capable people, the Bahamas because why the fuck not? In addition, grant Quebec their independence, just because.
Now THAT would be a useful foreign policy for the US.
"it is clear that if we start seeing fighters poking each other with poles with poo on the end, then obviously our Euclidean geometry and our Newtonian physics collapse.
And don't forget, Chickie, that the Aztecs stolen it from the Mayans, and so on and so on. It's people acting like people, and peoples acting like peoples. And now we've got this whole nation-state idea, which is a sometimes useful organizational principle, but misses out on a lot of sectarian stuff.
Icepick: regarding Mexico, I think you're conflating consanguinity with the law. Which tribe rules Mexico's courts?
And don't forget, Chickie, that the Aztecs stolen it from the Mayans, and so on and so on.
But you brought up the whole "we stole it" as a bad faith meme, and then said "but I'm OK with it."
You're trolling.
Icepick: regarding Mexico, I think you're conflating consanguinity with the law. Which tribe rules Mexico's courts?
I'm dancing around the point, as you mention. But are sectarian differences really completely gone in Mexico? The last 15 or so years of their history seems to suggest that at least some of those differences remain. As they do north of the border as well.
"But the war was fomented solely for the purpose of stealing a large chunk of that country, and the payment was just Americans either showing off their wealth or assuaging their guilt. But we stole it."
Bullshit. Mexico attacked us. Look it up. They thought they would win, and they didn't. And the "Mexicans" had no more right to the land then we did. The only people with clear title to the empty land were the Indian tribes. Besides Mexico "owned" California for 25 years. That's it.
You want to give some land, cause you feel guilty? I say we give them New England.
But you brought up the whole "we stole it" as a bad faith meme, and then said "but I'm OK with it."
You're trolling.
Not really. I have a problem with the idea that we've done all these wonderful things in the past out of the goodness of our natures, when the reality is much messier than that. And that includes just about every foreign adventure we ever got involved in, up to Somalia, anyway.
Again, just because I think there's a certain injustice in how we treated Mexico doesn't mean I think it was a bad idea. They weren't doing much with the land, we were a vigorous people looking for more land and resources, so we took it.
But those actions simply don't comport with our high-minded standards of our mythology.
You want to give some land, cause you feel guilty? I say we give them New England.
Go back and read what I wrote again. I'm fine with taking it. But I'm also not feeling like I have to make it a great moral crusade, rather than being a case of a stronger nation attacking a weaker nation. Who fired the first shot is irrelevant, as the war was what WE wanted. Go read up on Grant's view of the affairs. He was actually there, and he thought the whole thing a travesty of justice.
BTW, if we don't defend the land, and both the Republican and Democratic parties agree that we shouldn't, then we deserve to lose it.
And rc, I don't see how saying that we didn't really steal it from the Mexicans we stole it from the Indians makes it less a theft.
Here's a difference between me and most of you: I don't feel like every single thing in the past has to be glorified as a great moral triumph.
People are born, they live, work, fuck, fight and die. They organize. They conquer and are conquered. They leave what they can to their children. We're doing it now, our ancestors did it then. The decisions made are often made from the stand point of "What's in it for me and mine?" Or even, "Will this help me get through the winter without my children starving?" The moral justifications come when needed.
My ancestors came here a long time ago by American reckoning. They fought Indians, killed them, took their land. Sometimes they found empty land and took that. Sometimes the problem was that some native tribes had an entirely different concept of land ownership than European immigrants did. That's great for me, and it was ultimately great for the nation I loved.
But looking at it from the Indian's perspective, they should have had tougher anti-immigration laws.
And looking at it from the moral perspective, my ancestors just completely fucked over the natives. Especially one of my great-great-great-great-great grandfathers, who was famous for killing the last Indian in his county of Virginia. Good for him. It was him or the Indian, and if he'd lost....
Methadras said...
Icepick said...
Like when we stole half of Mexico?
And made it a better place? Yup.
In some ways perhaps. On the other hand, Mexico had abolished slavery in 1810, while Texas joined the Confederacy for the express purpose of maintaining slavery:
“We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable.”
—-Secession Convention, "A Declaration of the Causes which Impel the State of Texas to Secede from the Federal Union"
We are backing the wrong horse in Syria.
The only people with clear title to the empty land were the Indian tribes
Going back how far? 5000 years.....10,000......20,0000? The latest theory, substantiated by archaic tool evidence and some DNA work is that the earliest inhabitants of North America were from the Solutrian culture of Western Europe during the last Glacial Maximum over 20K years ago and that they having spread over the NA Continent from East to West were later eliminated or merged with the Asian influx that represents our current crop of land stealers. Look up Kennewick Man. Spirit Cave Mummy and information on PRE-Clovis cultures.
No one has clear title to any land. Every culture has supplanted the one before it. From time immemorial and will always be so.
The land annexed from Mexico is the most honorably taken of all of of territory. It's the only part we had to fight for, and and it' the only part we then paid the loser for.
The Eastern states were just taken without payment. For the Louisiana Purchase we paid the French for land occupied by the Indians. Alaska, we paid the Russians who's only claimed to it was that they could see it from their house. At least the southwest we fought for and paid the people that lived there.
Icepick said...
And rc, I don't see how saying that we didn't really steal it from the Mexicans we stole it from the Indians makes it less a theft.
It's not theft. It's just the way the world worked then. And maybe it will again, but it does not now.
@bagoh20: I've noticed an undercurrent of eastern smugness in the threads here, and you've raised a good point. But the very epicenter of eastern smugness was bought and paid for: $24.
OT, but I see that Martin Scorcese is coming out with another Eastern picture.
@bagoh20: It was actually $951.08.
I don't know a lot about the Mexican-American war, but this photo from Wikipedia makes it perfectly clear why we won.
That's our guy on the left.
Everything's bigger in Texas.
I've heard about Stolen Mexico far too often to let it pass as rhetorical device. It's a pro-amnesty lie and theft is the wrong word to use. America paid and continues to pay. Use the right word: conquered. Also, the Pilgrims did not stumble upon an empty land. They did spend the first winter camped in a graveyard but probably would not have survived but for other people living nearby who reluctantly befriended them in order to use their weapons in a war against other people living nearby.
That's our guy on the left.
Dude has a real lust for ... liberty ... or something.
FWIW, the Mexican War (only Euros and PC types call it the Mexican-American War) only gained us land we had occupied as part of the fighting, but was mostly uninhabited (only about 5000 Spanish speakers in California).
We occupied the northeastern quarter of what is today Mexico, but gave it back.
Part of the cause of the war was the fact Mexicans didn't want to colonize the land in the Mexican Cession and Texas because of the Indians. There were only about 3500 Spanish speakers in Texas as the time of its war for independence and about 17, 000 in New Mexico, largely because, unlike the other two, NM had been first settled about 1650.
Yep, a lot of theft took place throughout history, before the rise of instantaneous mass media, journalism, and the idea that the ability to document and broadcast these national crimes more quickly rightly allowed us to apply moral standards to situations that we previously couldn't. It's simply lazy to say that it's right and just because back in time, when people lacked the ability to effectively voice their outrage, it happened with impunity.
Police jurisdictions that have cameras following the cops find that there are 50% reductions in complaints, and significant reductions in credible allegations of abuse. The cops like it, too. Transparency breeds morality, and that doesn't mean that when an incident of police brutality does get captured, it's wrong for us to complain and want something done about it - just because before videotaping became the norm it was easier to get away with things like that.
Syria's a different matter. Not our fight, no good side to choose, and they're off on a course of history that we'll regret influencing with consequences as unforeseen as those awaiting the end of this dark tunnel. Plus, no resources for doing so. The only reason for intervening in things like this is if you think you can affect the situation resolutely enough to ensure that any changes are binding. Otherwise it's all for naught. Better to just provide a better national and cultural example of our own and offer to absorb some of the refugees needing to get away from it.
The way to stop violence is to appreciate Buckley.
All arguments were present on Firing Line not to mention other venues.
Then.
Besides Mexico "owned" California for 25 years. That's it.
This was an interesting tack. So it is permissible to steal something if the owner hasn't owned it all that long? So I can jack some sucker coming out of a Mercedes dealership with a new ride and make it mine, and that's okay?
LOL, this is a great line of thought!
...
And Lydia, thank you for pointing out the slavery angle on the 'colonization', secession and annexation of Texas.
The land annexed from Mexico is the most honorably taken of all of of territory.
For the purpose of carving out more slaves states. And honorably taken at the point of a gun seems a little ... off ... to me. It seemed off to the first two Republican presidents, too, as I recall.
It's simply lazy to say that it's right and just because back in time, when people lacked the ability to effectively voice their outrage
(Using a lot of parenthetical devices because that is what I do and I'm rather cozily tuned up right now.....and that is how I think.)
No one (that I know of) says that it is right. (the concept that one people/culture will take over another's land and culture). It just IS. That is the way of the world. Strong survive the less strong make way. It often isn't right or just. It just IS. To think that there is really justice in the world is quite naive.
People always have some way to voice their outrage. It may not be spectacular or sudden or even obvious at first. The outrage is often subterranean and of a long time coming. If there is true outrage then it will trickle down gathering more and more outrage until it becomes a mighty flood.
I believe we are seeing the beginnings of some trickles.
The expansion of the US to the Pacific coast was one of the best things that's ever happened. Not just for the US, but for the world.
Hard to see the point in condemning us for getting it done.
Where does the idea come from that Mexicans owned any of it, ever. They simply claimed it - that's all. They didn't pay the previous inhabitants for it. They just said it ours. Then Americans come along and say the same thing, but at least they pay something for it. Now, who is more righteous here?
And just what mechanism would replace the real one of taking by force. Who would make these decisions, and then enforce them. The idea that any other way is better or even possible is just not thought through nor realistic. It's just half an idea.
I have no idea what you're saying Bunny, despite re-reading your comment a couple times. You seem to be contradicting yourself by saying amorality is its own justification. If that weren't incoherent enough, you say there is no justice in the world. If that's the case, I strongly urge you to write to your local sheriff or P.D. and let them know that you'd like them to stop pursuing or deterring criminals, issuing fines, to take all criminal statutes off the books, dismantle the prisons and courts, and revert to a style of score-settling not really seen since pre-Islamic Arabia.
I could go on, but I like you and am disinclined to go on a tear about that being a great first step toward dismantling the internet, libraries, stable economies and banning literacy and literate behavior in general. Are you drinking tonight? Why are you (and, incidentally, Palladian) so anti-civilization...? You're far from the least civilized ones on here...
Hard to see the point in condemning us for getting it done.
Not only did I not condemn it, I approve of it. But that doesn't change the nature of what was actually done.
DBQ states it best in her comment just above.
If we want Canada, we can just take it. Who is gonna stop us. Who is gonna force us to give it up. In fact, I think it's a damned good idea with global warming and all. We need that place to stretch out and somewhere to park our motorhomes.
Hard to see the point in condemning us for getting it done.
Is it really all that hard for people on here to distinguish ends from means?
"You're far from the least civilized ones on here..."
Hey, I saw that! You looked right at me with that comment.
Well Bag, you are a guy who idolizes a movie character known for bludgeoning to death a guy he didn't like (and charged with the supposed crime of being "weak") with a bowling pin.
I hope you're kidding. A number of you are quite entertaining, as far as sociopaths go. But so was a guy known for eating human livers with fava beans and a nice chianti.
Hey, I saw that! You looked right at me with that comment.
Actually, I usually only associate your own amorality with financial matters. Although I did just respond to your comment about Canada in a way a tad more disapprovingly, depending on how you meant it.
Americans would learn a lot about being less callous. It makes life more enjoyable to actually have things worth caring about and not assuming that everything you see you must either decide whether to destroy or to eat.
"and charged with the supposed crime of being "weak""
He was also a liar, crook, and a corrupt exploiter of people in his flock under the guise of religion. But yea, he did get bludgeoned because he was weak. If he was strong, he would have gotten shot first.
It's not an either /or. Just because you destroy something doesn't mean you can't eat it too.
Then Americans come along and say the same thing, but at least they pay something for it. Now, who is more righteous here?
Yeah, we paid the MEXICAN GOVERNMENT for the land, not the Indians. By doing so we were recognizing the prior Mexican claim. And the people that moved into Texas, starting this particular episode of American history, did so to create more slave states.
And just what mechanism would replace the real one of taking by force. Who would make these decisions, and then enforce them. The idea that any other way is better or even possible is just not thought through nor realistic. It's just half an idea.
Bagoh, you kicked all of this off by stating, "America has been exceptional for most of it's history, because we have done what is difficult and not just what is narrowly in our own interest." The Mexican War and its aftermath weren't done to make the world a better place, but to make America better for the slave owners.
And more than a few people thought the whole exercise immoral, including such American luminaries as Lincoln, Grant and Thoreau. One of those guys was a pointy-headed dope philosopher, but the other two were pretty tough customers.
Grant in his memoirs called the war "unholy", and wrote these lines:
The Southern rebellion was largely the outgrowth of the Mexican war. Nations, like individuals, are punished for their transgressions. We got our punishment in the most sanguinary and expensive war of modern times.
We do platinum calves in my circle. Gold is so ghetto.
Your compulsion to make repeated jokes at the idea of having something worth caring about leads me to conclude that you do resent the idea. Better to care about shiny metallic things than about people or other living things. When, oh when, will you carry that wish to its logical conclusion and become entirely mineralized, Bag?
I reject the idea that morality should be the primary guide of our foreign policy. It is a nebulous concept, and can be used to justify all manner of adventurism for whatever purpose a President might choose.
Icepick, I didn't say our history was perfect, I was arguing it was on the whole, exceptional. It's a long history, full of struggles with other powers, but there is no other nation that has treated it's enemies, and neighbors, including Mexico, so well.
Ritmo, you underestimate the sincerity of my evil, exploitive nature. If we were talking in person right now I would have already picked your pocket, put it back and picked it again.
Jokes are jokes, but I'm sorry your parents abandoned you and weren't available to raise you properly, Mr. Bag. Do you make jokes about that, too, or do you make jokes to forget about that?
"The Southern rebellion was largely the outgrowth of the Mexican war."
Only in the timing of it. Grant, like many of his time, underestimated both the unsustainability of slavery and the need of those addicted to it to hold it at all costs. That rebellion could not be avoided, even if Mexico never existed. Grant didn't want to admit that sad fact about half his own country. He, like many, needed some other explanation instead.
I ate both my parents when they stopped pulling their own weight. You probably did something foolish and wasteful like burying them.
I'll note that morality is a great thing to apply to events in hind-sight. Here's a longish quote from the book "History of the World War" by Francis A. March, PhD, with an introduction by General Peyton C. March, Chief of Staff of the United States Army in 1919, the year of the book's publication:
"MY FELLOW COUNTRYMEN: The armistice was signed this morning. Everything for which America fought has been accomplished. The war thus comes to an end."
Speaking to the Congress and the people of the United States, President Wilson made this declaration on November 11, 1918. A few hours before he made this statement, Germany, the empire of blood and iron, had agreed to an armistice, terms of which were the hardest and most humiliating ever imposed upon a nation of the first class. It was the end of a war for which Germany had prepared for generations, a war bred of a philosophy that Might can take its toll of earth's possessions, of human lives and liberties, when and where it will. That philosophy involved the cession to imperial Germany of the best years of young German manhood, the training of German youths to be killers of men. It involved the creation of a military caste, arrogant beyond all precedent, a caste that set its strength and pride against the righteousness of democracy, against the possession of wealth and bodily comforts, a caste that visualized itself as part of a power-mad Kaiser's assumption that he and God were to shape the destinies of earth.
When Marshal Foch, the foremost strategist in the world, representing the governments of the Allies and the United States, delivered to the emissaries of Germany terms upon which they might surrender, he brought to an end the bloodiest, the most destructive and the most beneficent war the world has known. It is worthy of note in this connection that the three great wars in which the United States of America engaged have been wars for freedom. The Revolutionary War was for the liberty of the colonies; the Civil War was waged for the freedom of manhood and for the principle of the indissolubility of the Union; the World War beginning 1914 was fought for the right of small nations to self-government and for the right of every country to the free use of the high seas. [pages 19-20]
Interesting, and high minded. The author didn't mention the right of small countries, or large countries, to be free of European (and American to a lesser extent) colonial empires.
But even more interesting is the idea that we fought that war as a matter of great principle.
But compare that set of loft rhetoric to this episode, recounted in volume 1 of Samuel Eliot Morison's "History of United States Naval Operations in World War II":
At the time of the American declaration of war on Germany in April 1917, the United States Navy had no plan for cooperation with the British and French Navies in the common fight. Typical of the situation was Admiral Sim's departure for England in the last week of March [1917], with no instructions, but this admonition from the Chief of Naval Operations: "Don't let the British pull the wool over your eyes. It is none of our business pulling their chestnuts out of the fire. We would as soon fight the British as the Germans." [page 38]
So, less than a month before entering this war for great and noble causes, higher command in at least one branch of the military was just as willing to fight the British as the Germans. But in the immediate aftermath of the war, casting it as a great moral against German militarism seemed like the thing to do.
Only in the timing of it. Grant, like many of his time, underestimated both the unsustainability of slavery and the need of those addicted to it to hold it at all costs.
I think you badly underestimate the man.
Fights, whether between 2 men or nations usually happen first and then the justification or lack thereof becomes clear well into it. That's probably because, despite the cliche, it really does only take one side to make a fight. Nobody just lies down and dies, or runs away. Whether you want a fight or not, you will fight. After it's over nobody is gonna say they fought it because they couldn't run away, even though that's often all there was too it.
"I think you badly underestimate the man."
Very possible, but I'm suggesting he probably didn't really believe the Mexican war caused it, only that it helped pave the way for the inevitable.
I didn't read Grant's widely praised memoir, but I want to, and I will. (don't tell Ritmo I can read)
I can see what he meant though. The Mexican war created a lot of military heroes, both big an small who had a relatively easy time of it. Almost a picnic of a war. This left a lot of men ready for more glory. Then they got a lot more than they bargained for in the 1860's.
BTW, Ice, I left an answer to your question about my machinery at the end of that long thread last night.
Icepick can apologize all he wants for past Mexican grievances but the real question at hand is whether Mexico has a legitimate prior claim to American territory today and especially tomorrow. A long-nurtured lefty canard answers this question yes.
Answer that question for yourselves as a litmus test.
We can give California to Mexico. The debt will bankrupt them, and we can repossess it all legal and stuff. We can get Barney Frank to broker the deal.
@Icepick: I was just reading up on the history of early land transactions in Florida. It seems that the Spanish presumed to speak for everyone living there in 1819.
Late here, but riffing off of DBQ I am reminded of a statement once made by some British historian--or was it a politician or even a civil servant in the Foreign Office?--who once said: "What else is history but the erasure of borders and the disappearance
of peoples?"
Icepick can apologize all he wants for past Mexican grievances but the real question at hand is whether Mexico has a legitimate prior claim to American territory today and especially tomorrow. A long-nurtured lefty canard answers this question yes.
Where? Cite where you found this "answer".
They're just not afraid of Mexicans living here, is all. They don't think of all the migration, whether legal or not, as some type of "invasion".
Here is but one example, R&B: link
Would you be so bold as to answer my question: [Does] Mexico have a legitimate prior claim to American territory today and especially tomorrow?
I answer no. What say you?
Post a Comment