If your argument against attacking Syria would have applied to Rwanda, it *must* be wrong.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

There are a lot of posts at the moment putting forward arguments against the US attacking Syria in response to the recent chemical weapons attacks.

I think that the *conclusion* that these support is probably (but not certainly) correct - I think a US attack on Syria would almost (but only almost) certainly do significantly more harm than good.

But a lot of the *arguments* put forward to support than conclusion are simplistic and silly.

One obvious way to test if a line of argument has something wrong with it is to see if it could equally well be used to argue against the US intervening to prevent the Rwandan genocide. If it does - and a whole bunch of the "it's none of our business", "it's no threat to the USA", "what is war good for", "war always does more harm than good" arguments do - then clearly, the chain of reasoning that supports it must have a flaw in it somewhere.

There is one, and only one, good argument either for or against any war (or any other action) - "is it likely to do more good than harm?". In the case of wars, the answer is almost, but only almost, always "no", but each situation needs to be evaluated on its own merits; blanket arguments don't work.

[Vinnie From Indy]

1. What in your mind gives the US the right to intervene anywhere on the planet

to effect change militarily? Is this now a fundamental obligation that we must bear as citizens?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

5. Yes, it is.

What "in my mind" - as you so passive-aggressively put it - gives not just the US, but any other country capable of doing so, the right to intervene militarily in other countries under certain circumstances is severe preventable human rights abuses.

[Vinnie From Indy]

10. At what cost?

How consistent will you be in applying this world view? Should we intervene EVERY time there is a severe human rights abuse somewhere on the globe?

We have the capability to blast the Chinese with cruise missiles. Would you advocate that type of policy to protect the Tibetans?

How far are you willing to go with this world view?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

14. Here's the paragraph from the OP that answers your question again:

"There is one, and only one, good argument either for or against any war (or any other action) - "is it likely to do more good than harm?". In the case of wars, the answer is almost, but only almost, always "no", but each situation needs to be evaluated on its own merits; blanket arguments don't work."

[JackRiddler]

2. Are you still pushing the Rwanda mythology?

Western powers intervened in Rwanda years earlier, arming the sides in the eventual civil war. Rwanda was a French client state. The US set up, armed and trained the RPF under Kagame in the years before it invaded Rwanda in the attempt to take power - prompting the Hutu militia to initiate a genocide. During the genocide, France invaded Rwanda to secure the retreat of the Hutu Power killers. Only in the United States and among a very select class of humanitarian imperialists (outside the "reality based" community) in the mode of Samantha Power does anyone confabulate that the Rwandan genocide occurred because of a lack of Western intervention. It happened with the support of dual Western interventions!

[Laelth]

6. +1 n/t

-Laelth

[GeorgeGist]

3. Red Herring Special: Cooked your way.

[Laelth]

7. +2 n/t

-Laelth

[Douglas Carpenter]

4. "‘Christians to Beirut, Alawites to the grave" - it is far more likely that toppling the Assad

regime will lead to genocide - It is far more likely that U.S. military intervention will contribute to the ethnic cleansing of the Christian minority and genocidal acts against the Alawites

[Laelth]

8. +3 n/t

-Laelth

[Vinnie From Indy]

11. +1

[Laelth]

9. +1, +2, and +3 (above) are why I love DU.

Lots of smart people here.



-Laelth

[cali]

12. Sorry, but there was a lot that could have and should have been done in Rwanda

before the genocide broke out and after it was clear that it was headed that way- from stopping arms shipments to interfering with the radio transmissions that played such a huge role.

I gather you haven't read Romeo Dallaire's book.

[Quantess]

13. Are you going to enlist?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

15. Are you going to go and live under Assad's regime?

Your question is as much a non-sequitur.

[Quantess]

16. Chickenhawk. (no text)

[Gravitycollapse]

17. If you truly understood the Rwandan genocide, you would not compare the two.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

18. What made you think I was doing so? N.T.