I was in the “let’s wait and see if someone other than ‘unnamed sources’ confirms that the president intends to launch a strike against Syria before we freak out” camp. Well, if Kerry’s presentation is any indication, it’s on.
ETA: Briefing over. Kerry threw in some weasel words that leave open the possibility that there will be no bombing, but yeah, it sure sounds like they’re going to expend some ordnance. For one thing, Kerry spent a lot of time exalting the role of “congressional leaders” in the deliberations, as if designed to rebut the findings of that NBC poll that said 80% of Americans want congressional approval before a strike.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
This sounds like a war speech to me.
maximiliano furtive, formerly known as dr. bloor
Not near a teevee at the moment–can you see Colin Powell’s lips move when Kerry speaks?
Joey Maloney
Oh yeah, time to go blow up some more brown people. America, fuck yeah.
Comrade Dread
I’m starting to believe that no matter who I vote for, we will always be raining bombs on some Middle Eastern country.
Ted & Hellen
Hope and Change!
JMG
Worse than a crime, a blunder — Talleyrand.
Joey Maloney
And now for a dollop of “fuck the UN”. Cripes, did I fall asleep and wake up ten years ago?
ranchandsyrup
Cui bono?
Jane2
Thanks to Britain, we won’t have to hear any more nonsense about “allies”. This one will fall squarely on the USA.
It seems all my life I’ve heard lies leading to invasion and it never works out (and please don’t KOSOVO! me).
Belafon
Where was he speaking from?
KG
@Comrade Dread: well, we’ve got to feed that military-industrial complex somehow
soonergrunt (mobile)
Agence France-Presse twitter rpt: “Military Strike on Syria could come by Wednesday:France”
https://twitter.com/AFP/status/373369183947739136
Ted & Hellen
Wow. The NSA revelations really have the White House rattled.
This is one hell of a diversionary tactic.
Joey Maloney
@Belafon: From the State Department, I believe I heard the announcer say.
Mnemosyne
@maximiliano furtive, formerly known as dr. bloor:
Yes, if only there was some kind of proof of chemical attacks having occurred or some independent agencies saying they’ve treated victims. But, sadly, all we have to go on is Sec. Kerry’s word, right?
And since I keep being accused of being a warmongering warmonger who loves war — I think that the US acting on its own is a very, very bad idea. But pretending that attacks have not already occurred is the height of idiocy.
Lurker
Welcome to bizarro world: standing by and doing nothing while a dictator drops chemical weapons on civilians and napalms schoolchildren is considered moral and progressive, while intervening to protect civilians from future attacks makes you a murderous warmonger.
I’m coming to realize that a lot of ostensibly progressive people are really just isolationists–they fume when an American drone kills a known terrorist, but shrug their shoulders when a foreign dictator gasses 1,000 people to death with sarin.
EDIT: I mean, I know the Bush administration cynically made arguments about chemical weapon attacks on civilians in order to make their case for war, but people realize that the two situations are nowhere near analogous, right? Not every potential conflict is Iraq, and not every tale of chemical weapons use is fabricated propaganda.
Mnemosyne
@Jane2:
Check out the BBC footage I linked to. I’m guessing you think that was all faked up at the Thames studio? And I guess Doctors Without Borders is lying, too, when they say they’ve been treating victims who were exposed to nerve gas.
Higgs Boson's Mate
The triple-secret 28th Amendment to the Constitution states that failure at any time to be bombing someone, some place, is grounds for the immediate impeachment of the president.
Roger Moore
@Mnemosyne:
Don’t expect anyone to stop fighting the last war- including the people who are fighting to keep the war from happening.
Mnemosyne
@Higgs Boson’s Mate:
Take a look at the BBC footage and tell me again that “dead is dead” so the kind of weapon used doesn’t matter. Hey, the kid with half his arm burned off is still alive, right? It’s all good.
Belafon
@Higgs Boson’s Mate: If you’re going to be that cynical, you don’t even have to make up an amendment. It’s in the constitution:
RP
@Roger Moore: Yes — that sums it up perfectly.
Joey Maloney
Something must be done!
Blowing some shit up is Something!
Therefore…
coloradoblue
What do you say to the first person to die in an unnecessary war?
cleek
Respect Mah International Authoritah!
Mnemosyne
@Roger Moore:
I’d rather have people fight the current war than fight the last war. As I’ve stated numerous times to no effect, I’m in the “somebody needs to do something — but not the US” camp, which apparently means I want boots on the ground in Syria.
But pretending that all of this evidence of actual, documented chemical weapons use is just as fake as the Bush administration’s talk of potential weapons of Iraq is really pissing me off.
MikeJ
@Roger Moore:
It’s even worse when I strongly lead towards their conclusions, but their premises are full of shit.
Jane2
@Mnemosyne: I did not say that. The fact is that the US military collaborated with its former friend, Saddam, and his use of chemical weapons in the 1980s.. The fact is that the USA is not at all concerned about Israel and Egypt’s stockpiles of chemical weapons and the fact that they are not signatories to the 2007 agreement, and yet imposed sanctions on Syria back then for the same thing.
And the fact is that there is considerable concern about the legality of invasion.
And the fact is that there is no stated outcome or objective besides teaching Assad a lesson, which he could care less about, I’m sure. And that is not reason enough, in my view. “Doing something” is not enough.
And by saying all of that, I’m not “objectively supporting chemical warfare” to paraphrase an idiotic prowar blogger circa 2002.
ruemara
I’ve read some very interesting things about what the evidence says and what things could work as a strike, including methods that will limit US engagement. I can be cautiously optimistic on outcomes, but I still can’t support any air strikes. I am, however, not going to give into calling this the new Iraq and talking as if we’re about to invade Syria.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@coloradoblue: you’re about a hundred thousand casualties too late with that question
and again, I am opposed to military intervention in Syria, but this is not fucking 2003. No one is talking about invading Syria. Kerry was very explicit about no boots on the ground. (which you could argue makes the whole idea even more incoherent, but he said it).
Just Some Fuckhead, Thought Leader
Hopefully Kerry is for this one before he’s against it and he’s against it before it starts.
weaselone
@coloradoblue:
We don’t have to come up with that for this one. A 10,000s of people have already died in this unnecessary war.
chopper
@Mnemosyne:
exactly. not every dumb idea is iraq-level shenanigans.
James E. Powell
@Comrade Dread:
I’m starting to believe that no matter who I vote for, we will always be raining bombs on some Middle Eastern country.
Until they run out of oil, I expect you’re right about that.
Mnemosyne
@Jane2:
This is what you said:
So what “lies” are you hearing from the US right now? Be specific. Hypocrisy is not the same thing as lying.
Higgs Boson's Mate
@Mnemosyne:
You’ve probably seen more direct combat than I have.My experience is that a child with his or her arm burned off by perfectly legal WP looks very much like the child in your linked photo. Evil dictators are doing terrible things to those whom they rule every day. Is it our job to sling standoff ordnance at every one of them?
Just Some Fuckhead, Thought Leader
@James E. Powell:
Wait, fuckers got all the sun too.
Turgidson
@soonergrunt (mobile):
On the bright side, we were hearing early this week that the attack might come as soon as yesterday or today. With any luck, this slowing-down means they’ll reconsider. I know it sounds crass, but the victims of the chemical attack aren’t going to get any less dead or injured if we wait a few days to “punish” Assad.
Maybe we’ll even think better of it, though I doubt it – the administration’s bluster has painted it into a corner where now they’ll be afraid of looking weak if they change their minds.
chopper
@Jim, Foolish Literalist:
this is more like libya. but without the drones.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@James E. Powell: we’ll also have to move Israel and the Suez Canal, and put up a force field along the south and eastern borders of Turkey
maximiliano furtive, formerly known as dr. bloor
@Mnemosyne: The specific justifications change over time, but the absolute determination to use our high-tech non-chemical–an oh so important distinction!–weapons of mass destruction stays the same.
Another goatfuck brought to you by the suits who won’t be seeing their kids die and the megacorps who make millions off it.
Zifnab
McCain and Graham want this. Plenty of conservative war-industry state House Reps want this. John Boehner has given a big thumbs up by keeping his big mouth shut. The Benghazi hearings demonstrated that the only thing Congress will disapprove of is insufficient military deployment. Can we call drop the ridiculous “Congressional Approval” bullshit? Congress is salivating for another war. It just doesn’t want to take responsibility if the endeavor goes tits-up.
James E. Powell
@weaselone:
A 10,000s of people have already died in this unnecessary war.
Which war are you talking about?
Higgs Boson's Mate
@Belafon:
To quote Lily Tomlin, “No matter how cynical I get, I can’t keep up.”
Trollhattan
In my local dead tree paper, leathery angel of death Chuckie Krauthammer intones that three years of Obama “dithering” Obama is now “shamed into action.”
But, because this is the LAOD and Obama, Obama is doin it rong by telling Assad what, when and how.
I guess instead we should sneak in Colonel Mustard with a candlestick and NOT MENTION WHICH ROOM he’s to use.
What would I ever do without WaPo opinionators? (And why can’t my paper hire their own damn opinionators?)
sapient
@Zifnab: This is a really good reason to require Congress to weigh in on it. Obama needs to make them help own it.
Mnemosyne
@Higgs Boson’s Mate:
I’ve never seen any, which I guess is why I’m still shocked and horrified by seeing children burned to death by napalm. I guess I just don’t have your battle-weary experience of being able to write off the horrible death of other human beings as just collateral damage.
It is THE WORLD’S job to sling standoff ordnance at them, not the US’s job. If the UN is going to refuse to do anything, it should fall to the Arab League to police their own backyard.
But, sorry, I’m not willing to adopt your “oh well, kids die, shit happens, what’s on ‘American Idol’?” attitude towards people who drop napalm on schoolyards.
Punchy
This seems Syria-ous.
Haydnseek
@coloradoblue: Your moment of Zen………..
Belafon
@Jane2:
Luckily Reagan is not still in power, or this would be a very tough decision indeed.
RP
This is funny. So what you’re saying is “don’t counter with an example that explicitly contradicts the point I’m trying to make!”
Jane2
@Mnemosyne: If the stated reason did not lead to military action previously, and the country stating the reason collaborated in said action previously, the current stated reason is a lie of convenience.
This time, Britain was the fly in the war drumbeat ointment.
mistermix
When the paper is quoting “senior administration sources” that’s an indicator. That’s what’s been happening consistently in the last couple of days and now there’s this. It wasn’t something from Drudge or Fox, it was the Obama admin signaling.
Betty Cracker
@Jim, Foolish Literalist:
True. He also explicitly said they are keeping the lessons of Iraq in mind and that this situation can’t rightly be compared to any others, including Libya. I was glad he invoked the Iraq clusterfuck — that should be rubbed in its supporters’ faces daily.
kc
If the goal isn’t “regime change,” what exactly are we going to be bombing?
Mnemosyne
@maximiliano furtive, formerly known as dr. bloor:
I was unaware that traditional bombs and bullets cause birth defects in survivors the way, say, Agent Orange does. Can you point me to the medical studies showing that?
And, hey, if bombs are bombs are bombs, why don’t we use nuclear devices whenever we want? After all, those people would be dead anyway, so the method doesn’t matter. Why have nuclear bomb treaties or chemical weapons treaties since the manner of death doesn’t matter?
weaselone
@James E. Powell:
The one currently ongoing in Syria?
Jane2
@Belafon: I’m always surprised at the ability of Americans to tie something to a particular administration, and never see the cumulative or historical effect of some policy or other.
IowaOldLady
@sapient: Totally agree.
Though basically since there’s no good option here, I prefer we do the one that doesn’t involve war.
kc
@Betty Cracker:
I was glad he invoked the Iraq clusterfuck — that should be rubbed in its supporters’ faces daily.
Oddly, a number of wingnuts of my acquaintance, who were gung ho to invade Iraq back in the day, now act like they thought it was a bad idea.
Mnemosyne
@Jane2:
The sarin attack that’s being cited as the reason for the retaliation happened on August 21st. It’s now August 30th. So, what, we only have 7 business days to respond or the reason expires?
askew
@mistermix:
Actually, those “senior administration sources” have been wrong multiple times over the pas 5 years. But, don’t let that stop you from continuing to jump to conclusions.
This is the key piece from Kerry’s press statement:
Sure sounds like the U.S. isn’t planning on going it alone. I wonder if it becomes a NATO mission? Turkey wants action as does France.
Just Some Fuckhead, Thought Leader
Who among us doesn’t like permawar? 9% of Americans support intervention in Syria.
Higgs Boson's Mate
@Mnemosyne:
Are you always this obtuse or is it a Friday thing? I don’t want any child, anywhere to be killed or injured because the grownups can’t work things out without using weapons. To say that killing civilians one way crosses some imaginary red line implies that killing that killing them in other ways is legit.
kc
@Jane2:
You know, the rest of the world may not give a rat’s ass which particular American presidential administration is beating the war drums.
chopper
@Jane2:
that would make actual sense if obama was president back in the 80’s.
kc
@Mnemosyne:
Yeah, it took YEARS to punish Saddam for GASSING HIS OWN PEOPLE.
TG Chicago
Has anyone in the administration explained what happens if bombing the regime leads to Al Qaeda gaining strength and Al Qaeda gains control of the chemical weapons?
Seems to me that’s the worst-case scenario, and it seems to me that an attack makes that scenario more likely, not less.
Just Some Fuckhead, Thought Leader
@kc:
Probably aspirin factories.
Roger Moore
@MikeJ:
This. I don’t want us to do something just to do something; we should only do anything if it has a plausible chance of making things better. I don’t see any plausible course of action that will do that, so I think we need to stay on the sidelines. The best we can hope for is that this will be limited to a brief punitive strike against clearly military targets.
Belafon
@Jane2: Yep, well, the flip side is, Jefferson used to own slaves, and therefore we should never be an authority on anti-slavery. George Bush was also against gay marriage.
I understand what you want to say, but that the same time, Obama is a different president.
Jane2
@Mnemosyne: And what exactly is the objective of “doing something”?
chopper
@askew:
if turkey wants action, there’s nothing keeping them from requesting it under section 5 of NATO, right?
Jane2
@Belafon: So what is the clear objective of this intended action?
kc
Just for fun:
http://www.belgraviadispatch.com/2013/08/make_it_stop.html
Mnemosyne
@Higgs Boson’s Mate:
That’s the whole point of designating what’s a “war crime” and what isn’t. Like it or not, shelling a village where enemy troops are known to be and killing some civilians in the process is not considered a war crime. Marching into a village and putting a bullet in the head of every person there is a war crime.
By your standards, nothing is a war crime, because a civilian killed in the shelling of their village is just as dead as one shot in the head during the burning that village. My Lai was no different than any other battle of Vietnam, because those civilians would have been just as dead if a bomb was dropped on them, so the way they were killed doesn’t matter.
When you decide that all civilian deaths in wartime are equal, you’ve decided that deliberate massacres are no worse than bombings, so why not allow massacres of civilians? You’re leveling the moral playing field until any action during wartime is acceptable, because dead is dead is dead and how it happened doesn’t matter.
RP
To some extent it comes down to trust. I don’t have access to the intel, and I’m not well versed on these issues, but I trust Obama and Kerry 1000x more than Bush, et al. That’s why I voted for them. If that makes me naive or an Obot, so be it. I’m not convinced that military action is a good idea, but I’m not going to sit here and say that Obama is stupid or evil if he goes through with it.
Also, the problem with Iraq was that it was OBVIOUSLY a very, very, very bad idea from the beginning (the fact that so few Americans seemed to see that is the great tragedy of our time). This situation isn’t remotely comparable.
askew
@chopper:
They should be able to. Who knows if they will though.
Jane2
@kc: This.
catclub
@Lurker: “while intervening to protect civilians from future attacks”
Important if true.
Villago Delenda Est
This is fucking madness. Did Kerry actually serve two tours in the ‘Nam and learn fucking nothing? Or has he been compelled to unlearn everything he did learn when he signed up to be Secretary of State?
DON’T DO THIS. YOU DON”T KNOW WHAT THE CONSEQUENCES WILL BE, AND IT WILL NOT BRING THE DEAD BACK TO LIFE.
Roger Moore
@Mnemosyne:
No, she’s saying “tu quoque”. Since we once helped Saddam use poison gas in the Iran-Iraq war, we’re never allowed to use chemical weapons as a reason for doing anything. Just like bombing Hiroshima means we can’t object to anyone else using nuclear weapons.
chopper
@Jane2:
to punish assad for using chemical weapons so he doesn’t do it again.
to me the biggest question is, will that work? assad is backed into a corner and he’s a real asshole. OTOH, he isn’t an insane nutjob like the media likes to portray (like hussein as well), he’s pretty shrewd and intelligent.
i’d have to hear from people who know his thinking and history pretty well as to whether it would actually work as a deterrent. but right now, looking at the situation in syria over the past few years, i’m leaning towards ‘it won’t do shit’.
Higgs Boson's Mate
Can we at least wait to see what the OPCW concludes from the evidence collected by the UN weapons inspectors? They have concluded their work and they are leaving Syria tomorrow.
LINK
Just Some Fuckhead, Thought Leader
@RP: Obviously. Duh.
Mnemosyne
@Jane2:
Given that the deadline is Wednesday, I’m guessing that the objective is for Assad to turn a sacrificial goat over to the Hague to avoid being bombed, or at least to allow the UN inspectors take control of his chemical weapon stocks.
cleek
@Just Some Fuckhead, Thought Leader:
9%?
a little higher..
MSNBC:
Just Some Fuckhead, Thought Leader
@cleek: Whatever. Numbers are stupid.
Carl Nyberg
This is insane! Absurd!
The Obama administration seems hell bent on pursuing an ineffective policy that has the chance of being part of a gradual escalation to a larger ineffective policy. Or a major regional war.
John “Coward Hall of Fame” Kerry is shilling for the bombing.
Bombing Syria isn’t even popular. This whole thing is insane.
Roger Moore
@chopper:
Except that’s for mutual defense, so it’s irrelevant to something happening exclusively inside Syria. The occasional firing of artillery across the border is not sufficient cause for invading.
Higgs Boson's Mate
@Mnemosyne:
No. By my standards, killing any non-combatant is a war crime.
Villago Delenda Est
@catclub:
Too bad the meeting of the Villager Clairvoyant Society has been cancelled due to unforeseen circumstances, or we’d know for sure if it was true or not.
Comrade Dread
You make it sound as if US intervention has never cost civilian lives (it has) and has never made things worse than they already were (it has.)
War is unpredictable. If we get dragged into a prolonged conflict or if we end up overthrowing Assad in favor of a dischordant band of militias with competing agendas and theologies that ends up making Iraq’s civil unrest look civil in comparison, we’re going to get a lot more civilians killed and the Syrians will hate us for it, because the whole thing wasn’t our business. We’re not gods destined to police the Earth and save mankind from itself.
Instead of using the Tomahawk Postal Delivery Service to send messages, we should step up and increase funding and aid to refugee camps as well as open our own doors to take in displaced Syrians who wish to emigrate to the US.
catclub
@Mnemosyne: “why don’t we use nuclear devices whenever we want?” We did.
TG Chicago
@IowaOldLady:
Seconded.
mistermix
@askew: We shall see.
Edited to add: I just finished listening to Kerry’s speech and at least to me it clearly signaled that military action was coming. The question is the form it would take.
Carl Nyberg
What did Democrats in Congress and their allies tell progressives and anti-war activists before Bush invaded Iraq?
1. Republicans control the White House. We’re powerless. Blame Nader.
2. We need more Democrats in Congress to block these things.
3. The public supports this war.
None of these excuses are true now.
1. It’s a Democrat in the White House, a Democrat elected with the energy of people opposed to Iraq War.
2. Democrats do have the votes to block Syria attack in Congress.
3. The public doesn’t support this.
This is fucking insane.
Villago Delenda Est
@Comrade Dread:
Um, they are brownish. And probably Muslim, or Muslim-tainted non-fundigelical Christian. Therefore, they are mud people.
weaselone
@Higgs Boson’s Mate:
Lot’s of war crimes being committed in Syria already then. What do you propose we do about them?
Betty Cracker
@RP:
Me neither. But unless they can articulate some achievable goals, I will sit here and say I think Obama is wrong. I didn’t hear any convincing evidence from Kerry that bombing Syria will improve the situation.
catclub
@cleek: “when it’s limited to launching cruise missiles from U.S. naval ships – 50 percent favor that kind of intervention, while 44 percent oppose it.”
I wonder how many approve if you tell them there is a 1% chance Russia will launch antiship missiles against those ships. Remember Cheney and his 1% doctrine?
TG Chicago
@Roger Moore:
Agreed. Heck, I don’t even see advocates for an attack even making that case. It’s all “somebody should do something”. Not even “somebody should do something which will improve the situation“.
chopper
@Roger Moore:
of course, syrian jets have been entering turkey’s airspace as well.
i dunno, turkey could make the argument that their border needs defending here. or not. if nato agrees, it would at least have more heft then ‘the us has to enforce international law because noone else will’.
Jane2
@Mnemosyne: I don’t think Assad gives a rat’s ass what the US threatens/does. He’s in a fight for his political/dictator life, and knows quite well that the rest of the usual allies, save France, seems to be lining up on the side of humanitarian aid.
Carl Nyberg
As Phyllis Bennis noted in the Move On teach-in, responding to stuff you don’t like isn’t a binary choice between killing people and doing nothing.
If you are trapped in this mindset you’re letting someone manipulate you. You need to spend less time watching TV.
cleek
@Betty Cracker:
it improves the situation between the ears of those who are worried about American credibility and authoratah. that’s enough, for some.
here is the intelligence briefing on the gas attack. sounds like Assad’s forces did it… in case anyone was still on the fence about that.
Higgs Boson's Mate
@weaselone:
Why does it fall to us to do something about them? Your question obviates even asking that.
Mnemosyne
@Higgs Boson’s Mate:
So when 20 skiiers in Italy were killed by an idiot Marine pilot who was flying too low, that was a war crime that was just as bad as My Lai.
Gotcha.
chopper
@catclub:
what assets does russia have in the area that can target us submarines in the med?
i’m not being a dick here, i’d like to know, cause that could wrinkle things. tho i doubt very much that russia would actually attack our ships over fucking syria.
askew
@Betty Cracker:
Yep, I am with you on that. Hopefully, Obama’s statement today will provide some of that needed information.
Villago Delenda Est
@Higgs Boson’s Mate:
All wars are crimes. I say this as someone who was prepared to participate in one.
RP
@Betty Cracker: Agreed.
Higgs Boson's Mate
@Mnemosyne:
The man from the straw company is here. He wants to know where he should unload the truck.
Belafon
@chopper: This. I’m leaning towards action, because I do think the use of chemical weapons needs to be dealt with, but if we’re not going to affect Syria’s ability to make and use more, or not be able to scare them into not using them again, then there’s not much reason to go.
ETA: I think there should also be something done in order to scare other countries as well.
kc
@Lurker:
No one said that. I think many of us who have doubts just don’t want to go lobbing bombs unless there is a solid basis to believe that will improve the situation, as opposed to making it worse.
Especially given how well our previous interventions in the ME have turned out.
TG Chicago
@Mnemosyne:
I find it hard to see how that happens, but if it does, that would be a great outcome.
different-church-lady
Sinking feeling: I haz it.
cleek
@chopper:
these should be there shortly.
Roger Moore
@chopper:
Yeah, but “their border needs defending” != “blowing up targets deep in Syria”. Syria seems to have been fairly good about not giving Turkey any justification for more than local action against specific targets. If Turkey is upset, it’s because one of their neighbors is having a civil war that’s destabilizing to the whole region, but that’s not actionable under Article V of the Washington Treaty.
LanceThruster
~ “The Great Dictator”
machine men with machine minds and machine hearts!
Seems as if Chaplin was saw into the future of Dick Cheney
Mnemosyne
@Higgs Boson’s Mate:
You said that any civilians killed is a war crime, so I’m trying to figure out where you draw the line. “Any civilians killed” includes accidents, so that Marine pilot should have been brought up before the Hague for war crimes, no?
If “any civilians killed” doesn’t include accidents, then we’re back where we started.
catclub
@chopper: No idea on what can target US submarines.
But I did read that Russia is sending ships to the region. I also doubt that Russia would attack us over Syria, but how sure am I? That was the point of my question.
Another question is: “What if there is a 5% chance gas prices go up to $5 for 6 months?”
If Iran makes moves to close the Strait of Hormuz, that will happen, and that is where they have leverage.
Higgs Boson's Mate
@Villago Delenda Est:
Agreed. The threshold for what constitutes a casus belli has been lowered to “because shut up is why.”
max
@Lurker: Welcome to bizarro world: standing by and doing nothing while a dictator drops chemical weapons on civilians and napalms schoolchildren is considered moral and progressive,
Strawman!
while intervening to protect civilians from future attacks makes you a murderous warmonger.
Like we’re intervening in the Congo!
Anyways, all that presupposes this would work…. Wait! Where have I heard this bullshit before! Thomas? Thomas Friedman, is that you? Brooksie? I know it’s one of you guys!
I’m coming to realize that a lot of ostensibly progressive people are really just isolationists–they fume when an American drone kills a known terrorist, but shrug their shoulders when a foreign dictator gasses 1,000 people to death with sarin.
Ripped straight from the pages of The Weekly Standard and/or Ann Coulter, etc. I’m coming to realize there’s a lot of wingers who either vote Democrat or pretend to.
EDIT: I mean, I know the Bush administration cynically made arguments about chemical weapon attacks on civilians in order to make their case for war, but people realize that the two situations are nowhere near analogous, right?
Well, the thing is, based on the evidence leaked by the administration, it appears that Assad did not order an attack with chemical weapons, whereas it appears someone else did. (Whether that commander was being merely murderous, or had been paid off by someone is impossible to tell.) Now one could say that one was going to war with Assad just because it’s a nasty little civil war and he’s an autocrat, and I’m OK with that (still opposed). Invoking ‘international norms’ when assorted international countries won’t support you is bad. Invoking ‘international norms’ on chemical weapons (very weak) to supercede the UN mandate against acts of aggressive (and that charge was the KEY charge at Nuremberg, and got a lot of Nazis a noose) makes no goddamn sense.
Ergo, whether Assad used chemical weapons or not, the weapons themselves are pretext to go to war with Assad. Minus UN backing (we had that in Iraq), congressional authorization (we had that in Iraq) or just good sense (missing for more than a decade).
Not every potential conflict is Iraq, and not every tale of chemical weapons use is fabricated propaganda.
No, not every potential conflict is Iraq. This is Syria and more difficult and even less justified. After all Saddam, had launched a bunch of wars and his attack on Kuwait was unjustified, so in turn we had mere truce in place when Bush the Younger arrived and had been planning for war for more than a decade. And there was every reason to believe we could defeat Saddam in a ground invasion. Still a stupid idea, but there it is.
The one justification I could back would be a trivial attack to forestall calls for a future invasion and occupation, but if we haven’t even got back from the UK, this is probably a no-hoper.
Betty: I was in the “let’s wait and see if someone other than ‘unnamed sources’ confirms that the president intends to launch a strike against Syria before we freak out” camp. Well, if Kerry’s presentation is any indication, it’s on.
I had concluded same from the prior presentation on Monday. I am really preferring Hillary as Secretary of State.
ETA: Briefing over. Kerry threw in some weasel words that leave open the possibility that there will be no bombing, but yeah, it sure sounds like they’re going to expend some ordnance. For one thing, Kerry spent a lot of time exalting the role of “congressional leaders” in the deliberations, as if designed to rebut the findings of that NBC poll that said 80% of Americans want congressional approval before a strike.
If they lose a vote in the House they’re screwed politically and they can’t launch an attack. And they very clearly want to launch an attack, regardless of what’s actually happening. They just don’t like the guy. (I don’t like him either.) That’s pretty the same approach Bush had, plus some decency, minus Fox news and winger hordes and actual commitment.)
Getting involved in this mess now that the window has closed on producing a democratic revolution in Syria is… still a stupid idea.
max
[‘But folks in DC want to invade Syria (it’s been on the neo-con hitlist since 2003) and the President listens to them and mostly not to anyone else.’]
CONGRATULATIONS!
@Higgs Boson’s Mate: The term “Obot” gets thrown around here a lot with little justification.
However, Mnemosyne is one to the core.
Mnemosyne
@kc:
I do NOT want the US to act unilaterally and see absolutely no way that doesn’t turn out badly. But that doesn’t mean I’m willing to minimize war crimes or pretend that there’s still some doubt about what’s going on in Syria.
Higgs Boson's Mate
@Mnemosyne:
I’ll amend my statement to “any noncombatant killed in a theater of war.”
Better?
Comrade Dread
@Villago Delenda Est: They’re also human beings and that should be enough to motivate us to welcome them and get them started on a new life away from violence and death.
But you’re right. I realize many folks would collectively lose their shit if we started taking in Syrian refugees. It’s far easier to destroy than it is to heal.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
I’m not seeing a whole lot of support for unilateral military action in this thread. who are you condescendingly preaching at, exactly? Seems to me the people trapped in a binary mindset are the ones saying this is just like 2003.
MomSense
@Higgs Boson’s Mate:
I don’t think it says that killing them in other ways is legitimate. It is saying that the use of these weapons is even more horrific because of the long term effects on the survivors, birth defects of future generations, and environmental degradation.
kc
@Mnemosyne:
I don’t want to do that, either.
patroclus
@Mnemosyne: Exactly. What justifies the mad rush to bombing? Why do we have to do it right now? Why can’t we try diplomacy and sanctions first? Does the Chemical Weapons Treaty require bombing as a response within a certain specified timeframe? Why can’t we await the UN inspectors’ reports? Why the rush?
Suffern ACE
There is no reason to act now. I mean immediately. None. There is no reason to isolate ourselves for the sake of who runs Syria. This is not for us to handle.
I assume we can pretend that people are like dogs who need immediate treats or sanction or they’ll be confused by the causal chain. But I’m not certain that is the case.
Botsplainer
@Lurker:
FTFY
Mnemosyne
@Higgs Boson’s Mate:
And you realize that you are using your own, personal definition and not the actual definition, right?
LAC
@RP: I agree with you. As conflicted as I am about this, I am about up to here with the hysterics and irrational screeching this situation has produced.
catclub
@MomSense: ” It is saying that the use of these weapons is even more horrific because of the long term effects on the survivors, birth defects of future generations, and environmental degradation. ”
The rest of the world has not taken up this effort, in the case of massive use of Agent Orange in Vietnam.
PopeRatzo
I would like to have seen John Kerry beat Bush in ’04. I’m guessing our situation would be a lot different. And maybe, even Barack Obama could have been a different president. I would like to have seen that, yep.
CONGRATULATIONS!
@Carl Nyberg: Yet regrettably, cruise missiles will be hitting downtown Damascus by tomorrow afternoon.
I agree this is insane. There is no meaningful action that we can take, since nukes and an invasion and occupation force are clearly off the table, so we’re just going to blow some unimportant shit up and then let everything revert to the status quo.
America, Fuck Yeah.
Higgs Boson's Mate
@patroclus:
I damn sure hope that we do so. Although Assad may just be playing the Syrian version of eleventy-dimensional chess I wonder why he allowed the UN weapons inspectors in if he knew that his fingerprints were on an NBC attack.
Mnemosyne
@patroclus:
Honestly, I have no answers. The only thing I can think of is that people in the State Department are frustrated because Russia and China refuse to budge and there’s probably no action Assad could take that could get them to budge. He could set off a nuke in the middle of Damascus and Russia/China would say, “Well, how do you know who did it?”
Basically, on this matter, dealing with the UN Security Council is like dealing with the US House of Representatives — China and Russia each have an absolute veto, and both of them have associations with Syria that makes it to their advantage to do nothing, so they’ll do nothing, no matter what Assad does.
Botsplainer
@askew:
Turkey needs it. This actually complicates shit for Israel, and works out to a net benefit for Lebanon and Iraq.
Mnemosyne
@CONGRATULATIONS!:
So you have inside information contrary to what was announced today?
Mino
@Mnemosyne: Uh, depleted uranium in our ordinance is being credited for the rate of birth
defects in Iraqi children. And in Fallujah,…http://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/dec/30/faulluja-birth-defects-iraq
CONGRATULATIONS!
@Villago Delenda Est: Perfectly put, and pretty unarguable.
Jane2
@CONGRATULATIONS!: I don’t agree. I think Mnemosyne is an honest debater, sees the nuances, and knows that it’s not Obama fuck yeah.
Scamp Dog
@kc: Belgravia Dispatch is back in action, good news! Granted, it’s usually bad news of some sort that elicits his commentary, but that’s the world we live in.
Mnemosyne
@catclub:
The Chemical Weapons Convention was created in 1968, which was seven years after we started using Agent Orange in Vietnam. But good try.
weaselone
@Higgs Boson’s Mate:
Got it. You find killing noncombatants abhorrent, but you’re willing to look the other way so long as it prevents your government from doing any of the killing. That way you can delude yourself into believing you don’t have any moral responsibility for the death and suffering.
Also:
My question makes asking my question unnecessary????
cleek
@CONGRATULATIONS!:
no, probably not.
if they launch missiles, it will be into things like the military airbase on the west side of the city – the one Assad is currently evacuating.
Botsplainer
@Carl Nyberg:
Jesus fuck. Were you one of the purple bandaid assholes, or a giant puppet guy with the lyrics to “Kumbaya” tattooed on your face?
Mnemosyne
@Mino:
And in about 10-15 years, we’ll start hearing about military personnel who were in Iraq and Afghanistan showing up at the VA with strange and mysterious cancers and an upswing in birth defects of children born to veterans that will be (eventually) traced back to those same munitions.
It will, unfortunately, be Agent Orange all over again. No one ever accused the US military/industrial complex of being able to learn from its mistakes.
Comrade Dread
@weaselone: Do our best to help refugees with aid and open our own doors to take civilians displaced by the conflict.
It’s not our job to fight, kill, and die for the Syrian rebels. Especially given how most of our interventions in the Middle East end up making things worse.
Suffern ACE
So I guess that’s it then. I guess the best we can hope for is that this response to restore our threatened credibility will be measured if not muted.
We need a house cleaning.
LanceThruster
Our logic has always been unassailable.
I remember how after 9/11 we were so outraged over thousands of innocent civilians being killed over a political beef, that in response we killed hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians over a political beef.
Socoolsofresh
Hmm, Mnemosyne defending the Obama administration. Surprising!
chopper
@Mnemosyne:
yes, but chemical weapon use was banned prior to that in the geneva conventions. the CWCs that followed had more to do with expanding the ban and adding production and stockpiling etc.
the thing about AO was, it wasn’t used primarily as a chemical weapon but as a defoliant. the side effects were “accidental”.
Roger Moore
@Mnemosyne:
And they would both like to preserve the precedent that massive slaughter of one’s own population in a civil war is entirely an internal matter that nobody outside the country can do squat about. That said, the US certainly hasn’t done itself any favors in this area by giving the exact kind of protection to Israel.
? Martin
@Betty Cracker:
I’m not sure that’s the goal. That certainly wasn’t the argument Cameron was making and didn’t sound like the argument Obama was making. (Haven’t been able to see Kerry’s speech).
I think the goal is more to discourage the next guy from doing this. That we’ve not called for regime change in Syria up through this point and we’ve mostly stayed out of this, but if a leader resorts to these tactics the US (and ideally other nations) will then take sides and won’t stay out of it. Nobody has actually believed that up to this point for all the reasons the anti-interventionists trot out – we’ve not intervened in the past, so why would our behavior change in the future; it’s not in our economic interests to intervene; it’s probably not going to do any good in the immediate context.
Granted, it’s all sort of hypothetical and abstract competing against the very immediate, real, unmistakable result that people will die from this – but that’s unavoidable. Doing nothing is based on the hypothetical outcome that the end of this will be better than intervening, and there’s as many examples of that being wrong (Rwanda, notably) as there are of that being right. So I don’t think either side has a strong claim to their hypothetical being obviously better.
And we build a lot of incentives around foreign policy – mutual defense pacts, bans, rules of engagement, along with the usual saber rattling, moving assets, helping various other states, and so on. The notion of proportionate response as a tool to is widely held – it might be ordinance or it might be economic or something else. But let’s not pretend that these economic sanctions don’t kill people. It’s less immediate and easier for us to turn our gaze from, but we argue that damn near every GOP economic policy will kill people by denying healthcare, access to food, shelter, etc. Fuck, those are Saturday morning cartoons compared to the kind of sanctions we put on nations. We choked Cuba and North Korea out for 4 decades. Did that improve the situation? No, but it wasn’t designed to. It was designed to put pressure on the leadership, to turn more people away from them, and to serve as an incentive to other nations to not go down that road. And to some extent that all worked – for a price.
That indirect impact is what they’re probably going for here. It’s a big part of what happened in Libya where defections from the government spiked up once western nations got involved. Syria is suffering from some serious defection problems among their military and reports earlier this week was that following the chemical attack, a lot of leaders were trying to get their families out of the country. And longer term, embattled leaders will presumably be less likely to use these weapons.
Now, there’s a lot in this argument that I’m personally skeptical of, and I’m pretty pessimistic of the end game if we intervene. But I don’t think the argument is fundamentally unsound. So, I think you’re looking at the trees, them the forest.
Mnemosyne
@? Martin:
Interesting to see how many people from the military have defected. It makes the theory that these weapons are being used by rogue commanders a little more plausible. And if things have deteriorated to that extent, the Arab League is going to be very sorry they sat on their asses through this whole thing.
Felonius Monk
The Russians are speeding warships to the Mediterranean. I don’t think they plan on having a weenie roast and beach party. Russia along with China has already made it clear that they will not support any kind of a Security Council action against Assad. They have also both warned the West against any kind of military action.
I think Putin is spoiling for a confrontation with the U.S. so he can prove to the world he is not a girlie-man.
This is shaping up to be a total clusterfck. For what? Just to lob a few thousand pounds of explosives at Assad and probably killing as many innocent civilians as the gas attacks did.
But I guess it’s time to swing a big dick again.
Suffern ACE
I guess we can celebrate a little. Even though the bombs will fall despite the vast majority of citizens being against our involvement there, the vote in parliament yesterday was real. The GWOT alliance is broken. The part of the war that was about “regime change wherever we see fit” is over.
Ruckus
@Lurker:
It isn’t that the chemical attacks didn’t happen.
It isn’t that the chemical attacks are OK. They aren’t.
It is that us bombing will not change anything and will not solve anything. People have been killed. People will continue to be killed. Neither side in Syria is in any way a good side. Who ever prevails will not be good for us. Nor anyone else. So us killing more Syrians will accomplish nothing except to make some feel like they did something, anything to right a wrong. But it will not work. We will not gain any friends, we will end up with stronger enemies. And a lot more people will die needlessly. And we will have done that.
At some point someone has to say no. The cycle of idiotic world’s policemen stepping in to make things worse has to stop.
different-church-lady
@? Martin:
As Rocket J. Squirrel said, “But that trick never works!”
Suffern ACE
Oh, the triumphalism of our hawky war power foreign policy establishment. Why just last year Syria was a sign of how Isolated Iran was. Their one ally in the Mideast was crumbling and they would soon be standing alone because of their support for that regime.
Now who is exposed?
? Martin
@Villago Delenda Est:
It works both ways. Assad IS gassing civilians. There’s no reason to assume that won’t continue if we do nothing. I don’t see the moral benefit of trading civilians being gassed for Syrian military deaths. That’s really the proposal here. There’s no reason to believe that acting or not acting will have any different result on the number of people killed – rather it may shift who is killed.
Suffern ACE
@different-church-lady: nope.
Anyway, the sample size is kind of small. Considering how much of this stuff was out there, you’d think we’d have more than a handful of instances of their use against civilians by dictators and the global response thereto.
A Humble Lurker
@Socoolsofresh:
Your response was only as surprising as hers.
Matt McIrvin
So the justification is deterrence of others, which means that the primary motivating consideration is not whether this will actually make anything better in Syria; quite the opposite, really.
Is this punishing Assad, though, or is the US as an external enemy exactly what he needs? That’s how it usually tends to go down.
El Caganer
@? Martin: Well, somebody is gassing Syrian civilians. Whether it’s Syrian government forces or not has not been as thoroughly determined as we may have been led to believe.
http://dailycaller.com/2013/08/29/verify-chemical-weapons-use-before-unleashing-the-dogs-of-war/
? Martin
@Matt McIrvin:
I don’t think this is completely without local considerations. I can’t imagine that under this argument that regime change isn’t now a goal. Why the fuck condemn the use of chemical weapons from a moral/legal angle and not demand that the perpetrator of that not be taken out of power. I mean, if we could distill the consequence down to it’s essence, removal of power and a trip to the Hague would be it – and skip all the bombing. So, tactically, I think the goal will be to prevent further use of chemical weapons and to try and get his military leadership to scatter like bugs. If the military can be suitably disrupted, the rebels may make better gains.
Of course, we may not like the rebels we get, but that’s a problem no matter what. Cross that bridge when we come to it.
chopper
@El Caganer:
not clicking on that shit.
Socoolsofresh
@A Humble Lurker: Ooh burn! Well, I feel if moral or humanitarian arguments are being made for its justification, then I can’t wait to see the future wars in the Congo, North Korea, Myanmar etc. Otherwise, this moral / humanitarian reason is just the argument they are using right now for the excuse to drop bombs, and is hypocritical.
Betty Cracker
@? Martin:
I get that. But is there any reason to think that would work?
El Caganer
@chopper: And normally I would agree with you 100%. But this particular situation has people from all different parts of the political spectrum taking positions that seem totally out of character for them – hawks into doves, doves into hawks, etc. So I’ve been following references to some places that I wouldn’t often go.
chopper
@Betty Cracker:
dunno.
i’m sure obama has access to good intelligence and analysis of assad and his team thinks it will work as a deterrent. i’m waiting to hear from any outside assad experts as to whether they think it’s a viable move or not.
until then, i’m thinking it’s not going to do shit. but then again, i’m just cynical. obama isn’t known for doing things like this ‘just for the fuck of it’, contra the whines of some people.
cleek
maybe it would be worth the effort to send Obama a letter…
? Martin
@El Caganer: A) You are aware you sent me to The Daily Caller?
B) No argument on waiting. Obama has said he’s waiting. UN inspectors are out tomorrow.
chopper
@El Caganer:
that’s great. but i’m reflexively against giving fucker carlson any page views.
Suffern ACE
@Betty Cracker: no. They would have been much better off making up a plot to use chemical weapons against US targets than going with the “future dictators beware” line. It’s not like we can prevent future dictators from acting immorally and future people from rebelling against them. And that is what is happening here.
It’s incumbent upon Russia to drop its support of the regime over this issue. If you want to change the behavior of future petty dictators, sanction great powers who support them.
Suffern ACE
@cleek: funny. I did that this morning. I used regular mail though.
El Caganer
@? Martin: Sorry. It’s not one of my usual stops, either.
Matt McIrvin
@chopper: It sounds more like Obama has backed himself into some kind of deontological corner in which he thinks he’s morally obligated to send in the missiles even if it’s a butt-stupid thing to do. But maybe I’m projecting.
Lee
Interesting he spent so long on how it hurts our credibility if Syria uses chemical weapons.
How exactly did it hurt our credibility the X times it has happened in that part of the world before?
askew
@Matt McIrvin:
Yes, you are projecting. Obama has never shown any interest in being boxed in by CW or anything else.
? Martin
@Lee: The fact that you’re using citing our lack of action previously illustrates the point precisely. Even you think we have no credibility.
Just Some Fuckhead, Thought Leader
@askew:
lolwut
Just Some Fuckhead, Thought Leader
@? Martin: Is that the commenting equivalent of “I know you are but what am I?”
LanceThruster
@chopper:
pamelabrown53
@Betty Cracker:
There are no achievable goals, unless the goal is if you break the Geneva Conventions, there will be consequences.
? Martin
@Just Some Fuckhead, Thought Leader: I’m just tired of the argument. Apparently anyone can now willfully use nuclear weapons because we once used them means we must look the other way. The noble progressive argument of making sure that every past failing can be used to guarantee we never make progress.
Just Some Fuckhead, Thought Leader
@pamelabrown53:
Since when is that the case?
Just Some Fuckhead, Thought Leader
@? Martin: You never tire of making the case for war. I wish it could be you taking the first bullet.
Socoolsofresh
Can’t wait in a couple of months, if it all goes downhill, to see you guys screaming that it was all Samantha Powers fault and to see what cute nicknames you can come up with. You were for it until you were against it, I trusted the experts, etc.
cleek
@pamelabrown53:
the Respect Mah Authoratah! argument. it’s stupid, because nobody assigned that authoratah to us.
if any body has that authority, it’s the UN. we should let them handle it – even if means we don’t get to play smash-em-up.
cleek
@Socoolsofresh:
do you ever do anything but complain about how stupid the people here are?
but i guess it’s good to see you worrying about the big stuff, like how strangers on the internet are maintaining their intellectual honesty. good work. keep it up. we’d be nowhere without you.
Trollhattan
@cleek:
You and your trick questions!
Suffern ACE
@pamelabrown53: I suppose. Any day now I expect those Europeans to start putting tariffs on iPhones if we don’t close that illegal prisoner of war camp we run in Cuba. Any day now.
Suffern ACE
I thought we might stop doing this once we got rid of the “Greatest General Since Patton” and Leon the Terrible. But I see that was kind of a false hope.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@cleek: in this case, he (I’m guessing) is oddly distorting the actual opinions expressed, which I would say run around 25-1 against missile strikes (I’m including as against those who have apparently decided to believe we have half a million troops sitting on the Syrian border waiting for orders to charge). But when the facts don’t match your righteous indignation, ignore the facts!
Lee
@? Martin:
I’m citing previous examples because they did not hurt our credibility.
Did our inaction in (pick your outage) hurt our credibility?
Mnemosyne
@Lee:
Sorry, which examples did you cite? Your original example cited “X” examples.
We have chemical use during the Iran/Iraq War, and Saddam gassing the Kurds. What additional examples do you have?
Socoolsofresh
@Jim, Foolish Literalist: Ya not what I said at all but I guess that’s what happens when you don’t read. Is your name literalist as a joke?
Socoolsofresh
@cleek: No, I made my argument about it. If the admin wants to go after Syria than I hope it can go after the Congo, Sudan, North Korea. Because if the basis of their argument is humanitarian reasons, then why haven’t they used this justificfation to go after these nations? If they won’t, or can’t, then this whole Syria debacle is just an excuse to drop bombs that were taking up space in the warehouse.
Mnemosyne
@Socoolsofresh:
Please link us to the stories where the Congo, Sudan and/or North Korea used sarin gas and/or napalm on their people.
Or are you in the “the weapon doesn’t matter” camp, so if North Korea nukes Tokyo, it’s no worse than if they used a conventional bomb?
TG Chicago
@? Martin:
Strongly disagree. Among the rebels are Al Qaeda elements. You think it’s bad for Assad to be controlling chemical weapons? Think of how much worse it will be if Al Qaeda gets their hands on them.
raven
Ted Cruz, Rush, Pat Lang and 25-1 BJ’ers . . .
The Sheriff's A Ni-
@Socoolsofresh: Yes, yes, we know that your sense of self-worth is so abysmal that you have to take to smugly posting in internet threads to show off much of a special snowflake you truly are.
And, I guess, by responding I’m probably not helping. Then again, I can walk away and do more productive things. You, well, that’s up to you, really.
different-church-lady
Can you find your Damascus with both hands?
I did better than 91%, but that might be because I have two Syrian grandparents.
Socoolsofresh
@Mnemosyne: Uh, they might have not used Napalm in the Congo but at least 4 million people have died since their civil war has begun. How come one gas attack is worse? Or is a Syrian life worth more to you than a Congolese? If the Congo wants to have international intervention, does all that mean is they need to drop a chemical weapon, and then hey, now the world, especially the U.S., will intervene? Of course you are the one so strongly who is arguing that chemical gas is the worst, because it currently suits your ends.
KXB
Well, calmly explain that Hezbollah already has hundreds of fighters in Syria. If American strikes kill them, you can kiss that American-friendly government in Beirut goodbye, possible spillover into Israel, and the Iranians will probably abandon their nuke talks. The lesson is clear – if you have no nukes, you go the way of Iraq, Libya, & Syria.
Socoolsofresh
@The Sheriff’s A Ni-: I like how nothing you said was any counter argument to my points but hey that is par for the course around here.
chopper
@Socoolsofresh:
the whole impetus behind this response is that nerve gas was used. it isn’t for strictly humanitarian reasons or we would be intervening in a completely different way and over a year ago.
pointing out that somewhere else nerve gas wasn’t used is an idiotic response.
Mnemosyne
@Socoolsofresh:
Because of the Chemical Weapons Convention.
I mean, shit, if you don’t even know something that basic about the debate, why are we supposed to listen to anything you spout?
ETA: Ah, I see you’re on the “dead is dead” side of the debate. So we could nuke Damascus tomorrow and you wouldn’t be any more upset than if we’d used a conventional bomb because, hey, dead is dead, so the type of weapon doesn’t matter, right?
Suffern ACE
@Mnemosyne: nothing in that convention says that the us enforces it on its own. There is also nothing in there about protecting US credibility if the US does not punish regimes who use chemical weapons.
The us has no international backing to act on this issue except that which it invents for itself.
Socoolsofresh
@Mnemosyne: So answer my question then, if someone in the Congo fight drops a chemical bomb, does that mean we have to get involved? If North Korea did it, would we be dropping bombs on them?
Of course, you won’t answer. Instead you will deflect and point somewhere else. Thanks for not assuming I knew what the basis was for the justification. But your shtick is mainly strawman and to think you are teaching people so it makes sense.
Socoolsofresh
@chopper: My question was, if other conflicts used nerve gas, does that mean there has to be a response, or the world loses ‘credibility’?
LanceThruster
God save us all from people who do the morally right thing. It’s always the rest of us who get broken in half. — Paddy Chayefsky, The Americanization of Emily
Mnemosyne
@Socoolsofresh:
Define “we.” I realize that you never bother to read what I actually write, or you would know that I am against the United States acting on its own in this matter.
Here, I’ll repeat that for you, because you seem to have skimmed over it the multiple times I said it before in this very thread: I AM AGAINST THE UNITED STATES ACTING ON ITS OWN IN THIS MATTER.
When someone uses chemical weapons, the world is supposed to respond through the UN. Action through the UN is being blocked by China and Russia, both of whom supplied weapons and other support to Syria. Since that’s being blocked, my opinion is that the Arab League should take action against Syria, since this is happening in their backyard.
But there’s a difference between “someone other than the US should respond” and “chemical weapons don’t matter” that you seem unable to comprehend.
LAC
@Mnemosyne: I don’t know why you are using such big words with socoolsofreshlyoutofthought – he and his dudebros have flipflops to match with cargo pants and a night spent fist bumping and drinking red bull and vodka. Nothing should interfere with that.
Socoolsofresh
@Mnemosyne: Again, you can’t answer the question. The international community, the U.N., the countries that signed that treaty, you know who. I want to know if it is imperative to retaliate against chemical weapons, because that seems to be the administrations argument. And so what happens if the U.S. goes ahead anyways, without U.N. support? Is it the admins fault or Samantha Powers? Does the U.S. have to attack North Korea if they use chemical weapons on their own civilians? Not that hard a question. Because your whole point in this thread has been to huff and puff about how horrible chemical weapons are. Does chemical weapons equal, you must get bombed?
Socoolsofresh
@LAC: You are like the kid in a school fight who isn’t in the fight, but is the little dude standing by the side, rooting on the bully to punch that kids face in again.
Mnemosyne
@Socoolsofresh:
In other words, you didn’t like my answer, so you decided to ignore it.
Tell me, what is my position on the United States taking action? Describe it in 14 words or less.
Socoolsofresh
@Mnemosyne: You don’t want U.S. to act on it’s own. But it is fine, if they get some type of ‘coalition of the willing’ to support it, then you are cool. Not sure what you think I don’t get.
So, should the U.N./ Coalition of the willing always need to respond to conflicts if they use chemical warfare? So, if there is chemical weapons used in Sudan, is it the U.N.’s responsibility to intervene in Sudan? Question isn’t that hard to answer.
kc
@Mnemosyne:
Saddam gassing the Kurds. What additional examples do you have?
I’m glad someone brought that up, ’cause we can all see how our deposing Saddam has effectively deterred the use of chemical weapons in the ME.
chopper
@Socoolsofresh:
There should be a response to the use of nerve gas. Whether its realistic or feasible to respond is another matter. Just like with any diplomatic or military response to any bad act.
This isn’t hard.
chopper
@Socoolsofresh:
Are you equating yourself with a little kid getting repeatedly punched in the face? Cause that really does work pretty well image-wise.
Socoolsofresh
@chopper: Okay, so why is Syria realistic or feasible? What justifies it?
Socoolsofresh
@chopper: Nah, just saying he is analogous to cheerleading Obama and co. who are the bullies, and in this case Syria is the kid getting punched in the face.
chopper
@Socoolsofresh:
I’m against bombing Syria, numbnuts.
chopper
@Socoolsofresh:
Im still gonna go with you’re the kid getting repeatedly punched in the face.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
Your stupidity is breathtaking.
chopper
@Jim, Foolish Literalist:
yeah, it’s like a kid on the playground getting punched in the face after releasing some toxic gas. what is this, a captain underpants book?
Socoolsofresh
@Jim, Foolish Literalist: Haha says the guy who doesn’t read, he just assumes.
Socoolsofresh
@chopper: You don’t get metaphors obviously. Not really surprised.
chopper
@Socoolsofresh:
whatever you say, fat kid on the playground getting repeatedly punched in the face.
yeah, you’re a fat kid now. it works.
Socoolsofresh
@chopper: Not surprised that the full length of your intellectual ability is by being distracted about dreaming of punching some hypothetical kids face.
Suffern ACE
It seems that debating whether chemical weapons use justifies a response in Syria is soooo 2012. That argument has obviously been lost domestically. The administration is acting like it does. Also, the position that “it would be justified, but not without sanction from the UN or Congress” or some other authority is also a loser. Or it will be once we throw a few things at Syria.
Suffern ACE
Also, the hypocrisy of the US position here isn’t that they wouldn’t get involved in the Sudan’s genocide. It’s that if one of our allies like Saudi Arabia or Israel gassed its own internal opposition, we wouldn’t let a Chinese and Russian led coalition of the willing put sanctions on them let alone drop one bomb on them.
chopper
@Socoolsofresh:
i’m not punching a kid’s face. i’m watching you, the fat kid, getting repeatedly punched in the face.
you have a serious reading comprehension problem. probably one of the reasons people keep punching you, the fat kid, in the face.
Socoolsofresh
@chopper: Again, see you are stuck on it. You think of someone getting punched, and that’s all you can think about.
chopper
@Socoolsofresh:
It’s because you keep posting. When I read them I just can’t help but imagine a fat kid on the playground getting repeatedly punched in the face.
Socoolsofresh
@chopper: Heh you are funny.
Lurker
The number of people who can’t seem to grasp the justification for military action here is pretty astounding.
Assad knows he’s fighting for his life here. If he loses, he will be executed or lynched or thrown in a jail cell for the rest of his life. That’s why he’s willing to go to such lengths and use chemical weapons — they’re a drastic but effective measure that helps him win this war.
Our purpose in bombing military installations isn’t just retribution for the use of those weapons. Assad knows he can’t win this war with his hands tied behind his back. By destroying vital military infrastructure, we make it harder for him to win the war. By doing that, we immediately change the calculus — we turn chemical weapons from something that helps Assad win to something that hurts his chances of winning. As a result, we dissuade him from using chemical weapons further (and yes, maybe dissuade other countries from using them as well).
So I have to respectfully disagree with the folks who are arguing that military intervention won’t accomplish anything. Hopefully it will prevent the additional use of chemical weapons (Assad is alleged to have used them at least a dozen times, this was not a one-off attack) and save innocent lives.
Socoolsofresh
@Suffern ACE: Ya, that is American exceptionalism for you. We can do whatever we want, but don’t you dare follow our lead!
keestadoll
@Comrade Dread: just starting?
magurakurin
@chopper:
why can’t these people fucking get that? I too, feel a strike will be a mistake in this case, but I also see the moral quandry. Why is so fucking hard for the people who pop on here to listen and see who is saying what. I’m fucking tired of it. There is a very real and important moral question here and it is possible to be against intervention in this case in this way and still agree with the basic principle that a strike is justified as it is possible to be for the strike and not be a warmonger, dick wager, etc. Fuck off to the Daily Kos if all you want to bring to the table is tired old comments about the war machine.
keestadoll
Lot’s of horrid atrocities have occurred all over the world–much worse than this–and there were OFTEN no repercussions, which brings me to the first basic principle: war is money. We have a vested interest in who runs Syria or who might run Syria. Plus, yay! War machine can keep chugging along!
chopper
@magurakurin:
beats me. nuance is lost on some people. i try to avoid those sorts.
liberal
@Suffern ACE: exactly.
If our jihadist friends, aka, the rebels, launched a chemical weapons attack, would we bomb the rebels? LOL.
Mnemosyne
@Socoolsofresh:
Quick question: are you under the impression that the United States is a member of the Arab League? Think hard.
Yes, the United Nations always has to respond to the use of chemical weapons — that’s why there are UN inspectors in Syria right now. Remember that part? The UN? Investigating? UN peacekeeping troops in the Congo? UN peacekeeping troops in the Sudan? Any of this ringing a bell, or will you need to Google to catch up on events of 5 years ago?
Mnemosyne
@magurakurin:
I have two simultaneous thoughts right now:
(A) It’s horrifying that someone in Syria is using chemical weapons on civilians, and that person or group needs to be punished.
(B) If the US acts unilaterally, it will do more harm than good, so all the US can do is keep pushing others (the UN, the Arab League) to take action on behalf of the world community.
I would say I don’t understand why people can’t understand that I think both of these things at the same time, but these are the same people who can’t understand how I can simultaneously think that Edward Snowden is a self-aggrandizing asshole who gave national security secrets to the Chinese and Russians AND that the NSA needs to be more tightly controlled by Congress.
I'mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet
@Lurker: Well said. Thank you.
The need to punish those who use chemical weapons is compelling, it seems to me. We don’t know what the consequences of any actions we undertake in Syria will be, but neither do we know the consequences (as Kerry said) of doing nothing. Everything has consequences.
I’m interested to see how Obama threads the needle of all of these competing arguments in the coming days/weeks. I’m also interested to see what, if anything, the Congress does. Will Boehner call the House back or expect Obama to do it? Will the House actually vote on anything at all, or just a “sense of the House” motion, or a full “AUMF-Syria”, or just bellyache from the sidelines (no doubt St. John McCain will be on Meet The Press to tell us what to do…), or what?
Rep. Rigell’s letter seems to be getting a lot of press, and one could think that it’s a good idea that Obama get authorization from the Congress first, but I can’t help but feel that (given Rigell’s voting record) that it’s just posturing. Too many in the House are looking for something, anything, to manipulate into impeachment charges. Obama needs to continue to think a few steps ahead of the wingnuts while he’s also thinking about the kind of world he wants us to have 10-20-50 years from now…
My $0.02, FWIW.
Cheers,
Scott.
LAC
@Socoolsofresh: and you are like the village idiot, all sound and fury. Signifying nothing.
lojasmo
@Socoolsofresh:
Because all those governments have used weapons of mass destruction on their citizens, right? Right?
Citation needed, fuckwit.
lojasmo
@Socoolsofresh:
That would be the consistent position. Back to reality. In THIS specific case, the use of chemical weapons has ALWAYS been the reason to justify intervention in Syria.
Peddle your hypotheticals over on redstate, where you fit in.