Why, every time we come up on a significant crisis like Syria, does a significant portion of people I read online act like a military strike is not a declaration of war? There is no such thing as air strikes without war.
Unless you are prepared to say that if another country launched a shitload of Tomahawks into continental US it wasn’t an act of war. You can shrug your shoulders and say you aren’t outraged at the missiles hitting our cities are just “tactical strikes.”
It’s war, and pretending it is just a “surgical strike” or a “limited engagement” or “just sending a message” is a joke. It’s magical thinking designed to help people cope with the go on/get along and to convince themselves they are not warmongerers. I’m really familiar with this kind of magical thinking- “Hey, I’m just going to have one bottle of wine some limited air strikes. Wow, that bottle was pretty good, but it didn’t really hit the spot, and I’m in control, so let’s have another bottle of wine some more air strikes and maybe some more pressure in the Security Council and let’s press for sanctions. Well, that didn’t quite hit the spot, so maybe a couple shots of tequila some boots on the ground. I mean, I know what I am doing. Nothing could go wrong. I know how to cut my losses and quit.”
WOPR- three decades later, still smarter than most people.
raven
So we are at war in/with Libya?
cathyx
They think of it like this. Is swatting a fly a declaration of war?
Baud
Because we’ve been using euphemisms for years before Obama. Panama and Grenada were called “invasions” IIRC.
Fluke bucket
Using that definition count the wars we have been in since 1950.
raven
Well Obama is just “swinging his dick” and trying to win another Nobel. Goddamn it why doesn’t he go to congress?
Baud
@efgoldman:
I didn’t say the euphemisms were inaccurate.
Patricia Kayden
The good thing is that the Repubs hate President Obama so much that they’ll probably vote against his push for military strikes against the Syrian regime. If enough of them vote it down, he should take heed and forgo any military intervention.
chopper
@raven:
apparently we’ve ‘gone to war’ with libya quite a few times.
max
There is no such thing as air strikes without war.
Because freedom and ponies and Miss Teen South Carolina and roses and MERIKA! And also Edmund Burke, the Whig Party, HITLER! Plus moonbats are ugly old hags unlike that studly Joe Lieberman.
Why are you such a racist Cole?
max
[‘I read it in
GRITNational Review.’]The Sheriff's A Ni-
And if the government had gassed Alan Grayson or even Steve King’s district, I’d say we fucking deserved that act of war too.
Just Some Fuckhead, Thought Leader
Sorta like the joke “minor surgery is surgery that someone else is having”, surgical strikes is war someone else is fighting away from the safety of my easy chair.
Chuck Butcher
I’ll be damned if I know why things aren’t acts of war when they clearly are. I can understand the need for a Pres to act unilaterally in the event of something like Pearl Harbor or an event that clearly requires immediate and large response – but this shit involving extended time and extended analysis scarcely passes as “an emergency.”
Yep, I still think “doing something” without a clear idea of outcomes is just stupid.
Chuck Butcher
@Just Some Fuckhead, Thought Leader:
I want to steal that… if I ever bother to comment anywhere other than here – infrequently…
Liberty60
Exactly- imagine the pants pissing freakout if AQ or Iran delivered a few missiles into Manhattan or San Diego.
I guaran damn tee you nobody would be cooly talking about a surgical strike.
Suffern ACE
I’m guessing if war was bandied about too much, the president would start creating boards to ration tires and sugar again, or set labor rates.
chopper
shrug. not everyone who advocates a strike on syria is a warmonger, just like not everyone who has a drink needs to have more and more of them.
Soonergrunt
Bombing, cruise missile strikes, naval gunfire, invasion–they’re all acts of war.
A big contributor to the phenomenon you are describing is the inability of the other party to retaliate. We give wars and the other side doesn’t come because they can’t get here.
BillinGlendaleCA
@raven: If he went to Congress and loses, he’d no longer be President or something. (Been listening to Tweety)
mdblanche
@Fluke bucket:
“Using that definition count the wars we have been in since
19501776.”Fixed that for you, Kemosabe.
Cacti
Because only Congress can pass a declaration of war?
SATSQ
Betty Cracker
The admin provided briefings to explain why the “intervention” in Lybia was not a war, citing the lack of sustained skirmishes, ground troops, etc.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/16/us/politics/16powers.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&
I’m with you; if it would be considered a war if done to us, it’s a war if done by us.
Just Some Fuckhead, Thought Leader
John, the analogy would prolly work better if you weren’t drubkposting.
Roger Moore
It’s a warlike act, but not a declaration of war. This is practically significant. A warlike act gives the other side an excuse to declare war, but without an actual declaration it’s a lot easier to back out and avoid a full scale conflict. If you say in advance that your warlike act is for a limited purpose- a punitive attack for using chemical weapons, a cross-border raid to capture Pancho Villa, etc.- it’s less likely to escalate.
SatanicPanic
@raven: I must have missed the boots on the ground and the 100 year entanglement. I mean, I guess there was BENGHAZI!!!! but it’s hardly turned into Vietnam Part II.
rikyrah
I do not want to do anything in Syria.
lamh36
I could honestly give two shits about what it’s called and I’m honestly too through with much of the snarky convo. As I’ve said before,
I am against intervention ultimately, but then again, I don’t feel good about the idea that that means that I am okay with CW being used by guv’t to kill people.
I understand a numbers of polls have come out saying that a majority of Americans and Brits oppose intervention . I honestly think that most people are war fatigued and don’t really care if chem weapons are used by other countries unless/until they are used on American/British citizens or military. I completely understand the sentiment. But I also think that once that standard is set its set.
I think the debate is good to have, but if the Congress bases on polls and voter fatigue, then they will vote against any strike, as they should. But what I am saying is that is fine but I’m uncomfortable with the idea that a real precedent will be set that the use of chem weapons by a controlling gov’t on it’s own people while not sanction by international community, that it is not gonna be treated as anything serious unless/until a certain number of people are killed or affected by the chem weapons. And if the next time is against American citizens then what say we then???
Mainly though, I think, I’m just tired of the whole mess. As I said I’m non-interventionist, but I’m not I freely admit that I’m struggling with the possible outcomes vis a vis chem weapons and victims.
And I understand the US history w/regards to use of chem weapons and such by Hussein and such during the Reagan years and such but IMHO, just because Reagan era US Foreign Policy was poopy, doesn’t mean that we should be ok with stuff like this going on.
Ted & Hellen
@Patricia Kayden:
Well, I certainly hope so.
Someone needs to control that big swinging war schlong.
Cacti
Syria has launched attacks across the Turkish border. Turkey responded in kind at Syrian military targets.
Did either of the belligerents ever declare that a state of war existed between them?
No and No.
However, under the Cole Doctrine, they had declared war against each other.
piratedan
well alot of the difference comes up with what you believe, i.e. did you swallow the entire Hollywood propaganda of the 40’s thru the 60’s where the US is essentially a bastion for good, flawed as hell, doesn’t always pick the right fights and is somewhat tarnished, but still, essentially good. As such, duty bound to honor those international agreements that we signed, regardless if a conflict is within our best interest to get involved if evidence is found that someone is playing outside our current rule set on file at the UN. Residually, I believe that is true for me when I see how the US responds to international tragedies (see the Thailand Tsunami and the Fukushima disaster).
Or are you a stone cold realist working under the assumption that every nation state does act or chooses not to act depending upon their own self interest, regardless of what may happen in the future
or is there a third and fourth rail where you can be swayed by a government turning upon it’s peoples or that there is a commonality amongst us all and the use of these weapons by one, should be stopped and prohobited from happening again, not just for the damage and death dealt out in the now, but for the generations to come?
I really don’t have a problem understanding those that are against intervention, I mean, isn’t it time to let someone else step up, but in doing so, does that mean that there’s an implicit passing of the baton from the US acting internationally and if so, is that even a bad thing? While we all deride “America, Fuck Yeah!”, are we prepared to live in a world where the US isn’t considered the primary superpower ascendant and looked to as an example or to provide direction on how we treat one another?
John Cole
@raven: If one more idiot tries to use Libya as a shining example of success, I am going to blow a gasket. Libya is a fucking basket case today.
If your point is it is possible to drop some bombs and run and leave another fucked up shithole, well, fucking awesome. Christ, the whole reason Benghazi happened as a “scandal” is because the zone is so fucking unstabilized that there were a shitton of CIA agents near the office where the four were killed. What happened in the aftermath was multiple different talking points as events broke, and the Republicans caught the admin in a situation in which they could not compromise the operational security of the CIA in the region, and there were turf wars while everyone tried to keep what was actually going on secret. Republicans knew this of course, but opsec for the CIA was less important than trying to draw a little blood from Obama.
Everyone knows this.
But back to the point, the reason this all happened is because Libya is not Manhattan on the Mediterranean because we all got our war face on and dropped a bunch of bombs. It’s a clear cut disaster, no one is really in charge, and a lot of unsavory people now have access to weapons.
And there is fucking nothing I have seen that will tell me that some air strikes of even the usual mission creep will do anything to solve the situation in Syria.
So shut the fuck up about Libya. Unless your idea of a successful military operation is creating Baghdads every where we fucking go.
maya
If Cole’s analogy was with a dube instead of wine, it wouldn’t work.
Botsplainer
Hey, Cole, go get your shine box…
MikeJ
@Betty Cracker:
No, it wouldn’t be considered war. We would declare war on whoever did it. We don’t really care if the other combatant calls it a war or not.
Just Some Fuckhead, Thought Leader
Goodness, some’n is mr. grumpypants today.
Cacti
@John Cole:
So, just let the browns kill each other then, right. And if one side violates some norms of international law along the way, well, sucks to be the victims. But hey, I got a Stillers game to watch.
khead
“I’d piss on a spark plug if I thought that would do any good.”
Hey, if you are going to mention WOPR….
SatanicPanic
And I know I’m glib, but setting the precedent that using chemical weapons makes US bombs fall out of the sky isn’t a really a bad thing. I mean, if they’re going to have a, what 2 year civil war, they should at least have to use conventional weapons.
Churchlady
@The Sheriff’s A Ni-: That MAY be the most cogent parallel drawn. Thank you
Cacti
In the case of Assad, we’ll just have to put our faith in the humanizing influence of Russia, China, and Iran.
Kumbayaaaaa, m’lord, kumbaya.
eemom
If you’re gonna be a language scold now, Cole, the least you could do is give me my fucking of.
Just Some Fuckhead, Thought Leader
@SatanicPanic:
Fuck that noise. We should be killing the Syrians because our intentions are more honorable.
Churchlady
@Cacti: That was rather the response to an uptick in disgusting horrors done to Afghan women by the Taliban including cutting the nose off one woman. The attitude was that was HER problem, and we needed to get out of Afghanistan and force the Afghani women to take control of their own problems. Uh huh…
Roger Moore
Fine, you don’t like Libya as an example. How about Desert Storm? We had a stated, limited objective at the beginning of the war and we stuck to it pretty well. We got the Iraqis out of Kuwait but didn’t feel the need to go all the way to Baghdad, kick Saddam out of power, and try to figure out how to deal with the consequences.
I'mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet
The Syria operation is going to be more like the China/Vietnam dustup of 1979 than a traditional “war”. It lasted 3 weeks and 6 days.
Was it a “war”? Kinda-sorta, but not really. It was mainly China attempting to punish Vietnam. China had no interest in overthrowing the Vietnamese government or conquering the territory – the usual aims of a “war”. Nations sometimes do muscular things to each other that are short of all out war.
Arguing definitions of complex human interactions between nations isn’t usually very productive, IMO.
FWIW.
Cheers,
Scott.
guachi
Every time the military fires a weapon, it inevitably leads to thermo-nuclear war. I think that’s the idiotic slippery slope argument John Cole is making.
I can see why you were a wing nut.
Cacti
@Just Some Fuckhead, Thought Leader:
Dead is dead.
There’s no difference between a bullet and a tactical nuke.
Josie
@Soonergrunt: This is the crux of the matter. We don’t call it a war, and the other side can’t call it a war because of their inability to retaliate on an equal level. They don’t hate us for “our freedoms.” They hate us for our ability to wage war disguised as surgical strikes. I hope congress votes against this move; I hope Obama respects their vote. It would be a step forward for all of us into reality.
Howard Beale IV
Think there’s a significant population willing to boycott WalMart for an entire quarter to “Send a message” that their business model is evil?
Think there’s a significant part of the populace who will put their Congresscritters on the street in the mid-terms if they vote for the Syrina AUMF?
Face reality-the government doesn’t fear its citizens, and the citizens are more than willing to acquiesce as their immediate needs trump whatever the Beltway Bobbleheads think you need to know about.
Remember the groundswell when SOPA/PIPA was being debated? Where the fuck is that equivalent groundswell over the AUMF?
SiubhanDuinne
I know it’s dated, but I love War Games.
Has anyone else noticed that the then-unknown John Spencer (Leo McGarry on The West Wing, Tommy Mullaney in L.A. Law, among other stellar roles) has a small part in the opening scene of W.G.?
Eric U.
I’m glad Desert Storm doesn’t usually get much attention.
If I thought we could destroy Syria’s chemical weapons by a few strikes, I would probably be in favor of intervention. At least that has some logic to it. As it is, it seems like blowing shit up for effect.
rp
Sure, call it an act of war if it makes you feel morally superior. Christ, you haven’t changed at all.
chopper
i think libya is the perfect example of how, whenever obama decides to bomb a place that’s in the middle of a civil war, it always ends up escalating and pretty soon we’ve got 100,000 troops on the ground.
mdblanche
@piratedan: Who’s volunteering to take the baton? At this point being the last superpower standing is working out better for our allies than it is for us. Even when we mess up and come in for a ton of justified criticism, like with Iraq, nobody even tries to take the baton away.
Chuck Butcher
@efgoldman:
This is quite true, and also true about a military that was in a considerably different state than today. I wasn’t trying to point to PH as a thing done – but as an example of an initiating condition.
Howard Beale IV
@Botsplainer: If you’re gonna quote something, quote it right: It’s “Go Home and get your fucking shinebox.”
Chris
Well, I’m one of these people who thinks it was a good thing that we (and the West Germans) didn’t invade Libya after the bombing of that disco in the eighties and that it wouldn’t have been worth it to do so, so take that however you want.
chopper
@Josie:
i dunno. there’s a difference between an ‘act of war’ and a ‘war’, to me. i mean, if we send cruise missiles at syria are we really ‘at war’? that’s like pushing a 10-year-old down and saying you were “in a fight”.
Fluke bucket
@mdblanche: I was just trying to keep the count under 100
khead
@SiubhanDuinne:
With Mr. Blonde, yes.
SiubhanDuinne
@Ted & Hellen:
Are you even capable of commenting without relying on vulgarities?
@everyone else: Sorry for feeding. I’ll stop now.
mistermix
They don’t call it the “War Powers” act for nothing. Yet there is this constant denial by some of the commenters here that bombing Syria would be an act of war.
Bombing another country is an act of war. There are many euphemisms for this act because it is ugly, painful and dangerous. Just because it has some pretty names used in polite conversation doesn’t mean it isn’t war. Just as grandma’s having “passed away” doesn’t mean she isn’t dead.
Obama went to Congress to get a declaration of war, which in our system may or may not be needed prior to acts of war. Numerous different euphemisms also exist for declaring war, because wars are politically difficult and potentially career-ending for politicians. Again, the existence of a euphemism (“authorization to use force”) does not mean that the act in question is something other than it is, namely, war.
Similarly, making twenty comments in each thread with the same inane, wrongheaded and dull points doesn’t make you any more right, yet the same cast of characters persists.
piratedan
@mdblanche: true, for the moment, although with the posturing coming out of China and Russia, who’s to say that things will be the same in 5 years? Part of my issue is that we’re all looking at this from the relative safety of our safe little confines here, how is this playing elsewhere? For some reason, I really think that matters.
Josie
@chopper: But that’s the point. You can push ten year olds down and pride yourself that you have avoided a fight. I’ll bet that 10 year old felt like he was in a fight.
Baud
@Just Some Fuckhead, Thought Leader:
Today?
John Cole
@Cacti:
So now I am racist because we disagree? All class, Cacti.
Also, fuck you.
Howard Beale IV
@piratedan: Nothing is stopping your from surveying what the rest of the world is thinking, dude. Who knows? You may see something that changes your thought processes.
chopper
@Josie:
totally. but you wouldn’t have really been in a fight, right? hell, if i was the kid i probably wouldn’t think i ‘got in a fight’ either. i would have just got hit.
to me a war is something where both sides are able to engage each other. a cruise missile bombing doesn’t seem to rise to that. i wouldn’t say we were ‘at war’ with sudan back in the 90’s.
mistermix
@John Cole: That’s your white privilege talking, Cole. As a brown-skinned half Mexican, I learn every day from clowns like him that I am similarly afflicted.
lamh36
BillinGlendaleCA
@mistermix: I remember quite well the Iranian War of 1980 and the Libyan War of 1986.
SiubhanDuinne
@khead:
Michael Madsen, yes. Did not realize he was Virginia Madsen’s brother (or, more accurately, did not realize that Virginia Madsen is his sister).
khead
@Fluke bucket:
OVER
SatanicPanic
@Just Some Fuckhead, Thought Leader: Some Syrians. Intentions or no intentions there are a lot worse things I can imagine happening than their military getting a couple bombs dropped on it.
Josie
@chopper: The only reason that both sides are not engaging each other is that one is incapable of doing so. I guess that kind of thinking works if you believe that might makes right. I just don’t think we should operate that way. If we do, we aren’t any better than the people who use chemical weapons, IMHO.
Roger Moore
@mistermix:
Pot. Kettle. Black.
piratedan
@Howard Beale IV: I have been…. yet, I am disappointed that it’s not given much run here in the US….. makes me think that we could be seeing the end of the UN as any kind of real deliberative body for much of anything other than disaster relief and disease control.
raven
@John Cole: I responded to this
“Why, every time we come up on a significant crisis like Syria, does a significant portion of people I read online act like a military strike is not a declaration of war?”
DId I say it was a success? You’re fucking right I didn’t. I used it as an example of a strike that wasn’t a war. Don’t pull that horseshit on me.
Cacti
@John Cole:
Hahaha
That’s rich coming from you. Plenty of bluster and self righteous finger wagging from the man who stroked his Dubya/Cheney boner for years while Iraq was decimated.
Now that you know how reprehensible it was for you to support that, every time Obama uses the US armed forces, it’s the slippery slope to ___________ to assuage your lingering guilt.
Yes Cole, Bush and Cheney sucked. Obama isn’t Bush and Cheney. If you pulled your head out Glenn Greenwald’s ass long enough to get some oxygen, you might realize that.
MikeJ
@chopper:
Should we loan them an aircraft carrier to even things up?
Miz Conception
@Cacti:
Yeah, there kindof is. Chemical weapons and radiation have a much longer reach than bullets, and they certainly don’t stop at the border.
So even if you think we shouldn’t interfere with Assad gassing his own people, that gas could end up threatening other countries. Turkey shares a border with Syria, and sure, you’d like to think Assad wouldn’t be dumb enough to use chemical weapons near a member of NATO – but lots of folks didn’t believe he’d be dumb enough to use them at all.
Moe Gamble
1. This has nothing to do with chemical weapons. Nobody gives a flying f about Syrians. This is about a natural gas pipeline from Qatar to Europe to subvert Russian control of natural gas prices there.
2. Obama will try to use it to get his Grand Bargain to cut Social Security.
3. It will be explained to the befuddled populace how proud they should be for letting themselves get raped once again.
raven
@John Cole: And while I’m at it YOUR fucking bullshit about a Nobel is about as idiotic as anything I’ve read here. Schmuck.
jo6pac
Sad
hoodie
@John Cole: Seems like you think military action has to deliver final, comprehensive solutions, or it’s never justified. War is politics by other means, and politics doesn’t stop when the war ends. Obama opposed Iraq not because it was immoral per se, but because it was a strategically dumb and completely unnecessary. Iraq wasn’t invading anyone, there were no WMDs, there was no ongoing civil war that was breeding instability, and Saddam was successfully contained by other means. Moreover, Iraq was sold on a metric shit ton of lies and was incompetently executed based on wet dreams of the Heritage Foundation and PNAC.
Libya is an example of a limited engagement that didn’t become a war, not necessarily the war to end all wars. Today, Libya’s probably no worse fucked up than it was under Gaddafi or, more accurately, where it would have been had Gaddafi been allowed to turn Benghazi into a charnel house. Our actions there did not require the loss of American lives (what happened to the diplomats could have happened in any unstable locale) and Obama wasn’t selling it as paving the way for democracy dominoes to fall across the middle east. On balance, Libya is more towards the better end of the spectrum between proper use of military force and improper use of military force. Iraq is towards the other end. Both ends suck in the greater scheme of things.
Cacti
@mistermix:
And tweedle dum pops in.
No, you dudebros totes have the pulse of the nation. The NSA tops every list of most important issues, and everyone hangs on every word of Ars Technica.
lamh36
@mistermix: This is def the aspect of it that pulls me to the side of non-intervention. But as I said, I do struggle with the possible consequences in terms of actual victims of chem weapons.
As many people have pointed out though, the “evidence” so far that is being fed to the public is not “strong as steel” and thanks to GWB’s phoney “WMD” declaration leading to the last War in Iraq, I can understand that people want stronger evidence.
But I agree that anyone who really tries to get some “wiggle” room by not calling it what it is, is being either disigenuous or very, very naive.
Roger Moore
@piratedan:
It should be clear to any competent observer that the permanent members’ veto power makes the Security Council toothless.
Quaker in a Basement
I will be interested to see how we go about punishing Assad for killing civilians without killing even more civilians.
mistermix
@BillinGlendaleCA: Those were acts of war. In either case, no war was declared. Invading the sovereign territory of another country is an act of war. As is bombing another country.
Clausewitz’s simple definition of war is “an act of violence intended to compel our opponent to fulfill our will”. Those are both wars by that definition.
Villago Delenda Est
It STILL pisses me off that old men get together and decide to send young men to die for dubious reasons.
An “optional war” is by necessity a war of aggression. Plotting a war of aggression used to get you into all sorts of fatal trouble. Just ask Tojo and Goering.
And I’m one of the old men now.
raven
@Quaker in a Basement: By sending in the Quakers.
Howard Beale IV
@piratedan: That’s one of the reasons why I have satellite radio and one of my presets is BBC World Service. They pull very few punches. It’s sad that I can’t get Deutsche Welle, RNW, NHK and Al Jazeera English on Sirius XM, but ya take what you can get. Now if I was really whacked I could try streaming those channels from my phone, but the cellular nets aren’t built for that kind of traffic very well, and as soon as you leave the Interstates you can kiss any kind of consistent streaming goodbye.
MikeJ
@Moe Gamble: And the mind control lasers, under the direction of the Boy Sprouts, will take over the Secret Masters of Fandom.
joes527
@Cacti:
If you are standing in the wrong place, they are exactly the same to you.
And isn’t this the blog where all the cool kids argue that Dronze ain’t no thing?
Villago Delenda Est
@Roger Moore:
The Russians are NOT going to make the same mistake the Soviets did IRT Korea, where the USSR walked out on the session that involved the UN in opposing the North Korean invasion of the South.
Villago Delenda Est
@joes527:
Somehow, Dronz are different from F16s dropping bombs. Don’t ask me why, they’re scary and science fictiony.
Howard Beale IV
@Roger Moore: Always has, always will. The “Security Council” is the single biggest reason for the dysfunction of the UN. it surprises me why we even bother to host it, let alone spend millions keeping it meaningful when other groups with a more narrow focus do better with less funds.
mdblanche
@piratedan: Except most of the countries we have military alliances with would regard either a resurgent Russia or a newly assertive China as a threat…
Cacti
@joes527:
Dronez is the worstest thing ever.
Sarin gas attacks? meh. It’s just browns killing browns. Middle eastern problem.
Ted & Hellen
@SiubhanDuinne:
Yes, because BJ commenters never use vulgarities or obscenities.
Fuck you.
chopper
@Josie:
i don’t think ‘might makes right’. i just consider ‘war’ to have a certain meaning.
we can disagree without me inherently being a warmonger. i’m not even for this stupid bombing.
piratedan
@Roger Moore: true and yet intervention in Kosovo, and East Timor happened, and this whole mess with Syria has a boatload of crappy outcomes. It does appear that reluctantly that the Arab League is on board, as is France, plus it appears that the UK may be bringing this up yet again and I’m sure that the topic will be discussed at the G20 as well. I would imagine that Turkey has some input as well as the remainder of Syria’s neighbors.
I also have issues with our own hypocrisy regardless of the choice that ends up being made, granted the previous use against Iranians (by Saddam, with an assist by the CIA courtesy of RR) makes me ill yet does that justify allowing Assad to use them, even against people that aren’t disposed to like us? Different scenarios, at the time Saddam was our tool and in this case, we have no allegiance to either Assad or the AQ and MB factions that comprise a healthy part of his opposition.
Josie
@SiubhanDuinne: Aaaand there you have your answer.
joes527
@Villago Delenda Est: No, but they do scale much more easily/cheaply. Somehow, perpetual drone warfare is more scary and science fictiony than warfare that would require us to have skin in the game.
Gin & Tonic
In 1994, when NATO, at the urging of the UN, authorized the CINCSOUTH to launch air strikes against the Bosnian Serb positions around Sarajevo, who was then at war with whom?
mistermix
@Cacti: Here’s a Cacti challenge – post a link to the last comment where you made a clear argument without employing an ad hominem.
Felonius Monk
There’s this and then there’s that. And I still think John Kerry is proving himself to be a doofus.
Ted & Hellen
@Cacti:
Yeah…but at least it’s not African Americans getting killed, so who cares, amirite?
Villago Delenda Est
The question should be, what effect will a US strike of Syria have on that conflict?
Can anyone answer this question? We don’t even know if the Sarin attack was ordered by Assad. The Mossad has this very bad rep for making shit up to make their enemies look bad.
It’s very possible that the attack was engineered by a desperate rebel faction to cause exactly this reaction.
Assad is not Emperor Palpatine, no matter how much Gramps and Huckleberry say he is.
Sly
I’m really glad we’re now on the “let’s all quibble over definitions” phase of this discussion, and I personally can’t wait until we get to the “dipshit from Code Pink throws red paint on Samantha Power” phase. You know… the really important stuff.
BillinGlendaleCA
Deleted
fuckwit
I love this post very much.
Thanks Cole, you fuckin nailed it.
chopper
@Gin & Tonic:
everyone!
SiubhanDuinne
@Ted & Hellen:
Non fucking sequitur.
piratedan
@Howard Beale IV: catch BBC News when and where I can and happy to have AJA on our cable replacing Current, so far, been impressed with AJA, while not perfect, a damn site better than the vast majority of what passes for news these days on the TV
Josie
@chopper: Never meant to intimate you are a warmonger. Just a slight difference of opinion over semantics. I think this is a difficult situation to argue about, since it has so many different meanings and much historical context.
raven
@piratedan: The old AJ was better.
dexwood
@raven:
You know, if we had a Quaker Seal team 6, we’d have a better world (Nixon excepted), and great corn and tomatoes for all.
Svensker
Dang straight, Cole. This is just making me sick.
raven
@dexwood: If a bullfrog had wings it wouldn’t bump it’s ass when it hooped.
mistermix
@lamh36:
Hard to tell which it is, but there’s certainly a lot of denial involved.
Cacti
@mistermix:
21, 29, 48, 101
Yawn
SiubhanDuinne
@Josie: Yup. Wish I had someone to bet with, I would’ve made book on that response.
John Cole
@raven:
So if it wasn’t a success, then why are you advocating the same approach for Syria?
dexwood
@raven:
Understood, but not my point. Recalibrate your snark meter, respected commenter. Just goofin’ for the moment,
PurpleGirl
@SiubhanDuinne: I always try to make sure I see the opening scenes with John Spencer. I like the whole movie but that opening is really good.
ETA: Over the weekend a Law & Order that he did was shown — he played a father whose daughter dies in an ER from a bad drug interaction.
Howard Beale IV
@piratedan: If Syria leaves us with no good options then why aren’t we even thinking about taking out all of the belligerents? If we’re going to get dragged into a no-win scenario, then we should make it a no-win scenario for everyone involved-after all, if they’re going to make us have blood on our hands, it makes no sense to favor one against the other-especially, as history probably will reveal, the insurgents ain’t all sweetness and light either, and probably will stab us in the back a la Afghanistan and bin Laden.
It also sends a message to the interlocutors in the Arab Region: Thanks to your meddling, you’re now going to get your collected asses dragged into the shitpot you’be been stirring.
Basta!
Gin & Tonic
@Ted & Hellen: I miss all the cool stuff. Last week I didn’t find out about International Bacon Day until too late, now it’s almost 9:00 pm and I find out it’s Weakest Trolling on the Internet Day.
BillinGlendaleCA
@John Cole: Have you thought of starting a new America First Committee?
Davis X. Machina
@Gin & Tonic: Didn’t count. No oil.
RP
This is a stupid argument over semantics. Cole et al want to say that we’re going to war with Syria because it sounds much worse than “air strikes” and suggests a deep, long term involvement. But, ultimately, what you call it doesn’t make much of a difference in the real world.
The bottom line is that anyone who says there’s a clear right or wrong answer to this question is lying or delusional.
raven
@John Cole: I’m not advocating shit. I directly answered a question you posted.
mdblanche
@Villago Delenda Est: Uncle Joe forgot why he asked for veto power in the first place. Neither he, any of his successors, nor any other country with a veto will ever forget again.
Cacti
@efgoldman:
Who said that we were going to try?
Intervention in this case is based on chemical attacks on civilian populations, in violation of the norms established by the 1993 Convention on Chemical Weapons.
“Dead is dead” is a popular trope, but the nations of the world do see a qualitative difference between bullets and sarin gas. Otherwise, we’re not even having this conversation.
joes527
@Cacti:
Funny how all the sympathy for “the browns” disappears when WE are the ones raining death out of the sky. It is just … shit happens .. you know?
There is a book somewhere that talks about taking the plank out of your own eye before you go trying to fix the speck in your neighbor’s eye. Let me see if I can find it … it is one of the better parts of that book.
Roger Moore
@dexwood:
Just turn the whole thing over to Unitarian Jihad.
dexwood
@raven:
Plus, I don’t think frogs Hoola-hoop. Just fuckin’ with ya’. No harm intended. Out of here, sadly.
raven
@dexwood: I’m cool.
dexwood
@Roger Moore:
that made me chuckle.
Nght, all.
mistermix
@Cacti:
Yeah, Aristotle would be proud of that syllogism.
Just Some Fuckhead
@joes527: ergo we can never remove the beam in someone’s eye because we have a plank in ours.
Baud
Surgical air strikes with no boots on the ground.
huh yeah
What is it good for?
Absolutely nothing,
dexwood
@raven:
I know. M e too.
joes527
@Cacti:
So, you are admitting that the dead babies are just an excuse for the fire and brimstone that you want to feel a desire to rain in someone’s head?
Cacti
@joes527:
Just as you’re admitting that as long as Assad’s doing the killing, you’re just fine with it, treaties or no.
Mandalay
@Roger Moore:
True, but also not a good example. Desert Storm was rectifying our own fuck up, since we gave Saddam Hussein a nod and wink to go there in the first place.
piratedan
@Howard Beale IV: while I can see the ruthless elegance of your “kill ’em all and let the sky buddy of your choosing sort ’em out”, it’s apparent to me that there’s a real problem with Islam itself in that we have multiple schisms within that religion and it’s like the Sunni’s versus everyone else (although that is most likely a gross oversimplification) in that nobody can apparently find common cause even within the shared faith. Perhaps it is very much like the Protestant/Catholic schism in Christianity that took centuries to burn itself out (and it STILL smolders in Ireland and in various backwaters in the US). How in the hell does a western culture that has little understanding of that faith help them to realize common cause and still not make itself a target…. wish the hell I knew.
joes527
@Just Some Fuckhead: I dunno, but I am fairly certain that we can’t do it with a tomahawk missile.
Keith G
A few threads ago, I noted how many people were seeming to imply that there is a clear duality present in the present issue with Syria. There isn’t. I do believe that Obama has reasoned that the consequence of doing nothing (or little) are just too dangerous. Obama has never been a dove and he has been in these considerations more center right than he is center left. Had the Parliament voted differently, an attack would have been launched by Monday. Why get hung up on a traditional definition of war any more than we allow to get ourselves hung up on the traditional definition of marriage.
But I do not believe that he was taking this lightly. I think Obama’s default position would be “no attack” but a sober view of the first order, second order and third order consequences of various possible US behaviors have nudged him into the “launch an attack” position.
For the purposes of above, first order consequences are those things happening in Syria. Second order consequences would be what spills over to the contiguous neighbors of Syria. And third order consequences would be changes happening to the strategic alliances that touch the area.
You see, as bad as it is that Syrian kids are being slaughtered by these war crimes, it’s only partially about them, or about other dead Syrians in any quantity.
FWIW, I feel Obama was heading down the right path prior to the weekend. He decided that an attack was appropriate, Constitutionally permissible, and was gearing up to deliver. The delay for Congress is making a bad and murky situation more so on both counts. The delay is, hour by hour, decaying the effectiveness of such a strike.
Ironically this attempt at better optics and politics may create a policy action that has lost its chance to be useful and effective.
Cacti
@Just Some Fuckhead:
Reagan was right not condemn apartheid or sanction South Africa.
The US had a history of slavery and Jim Crow.
And not being a hypocrite is the most important of all principles.
raven
@Keith G: “The delay is, hour by hour, delaying the effectiveness of such a strike.”
Why? Because they are moving their shit around?
mistermix
@Keith G:
This will be the post-hoc rationale that is used by advocates of bombing Syria when it is as ineffective as those opposing it said it would be.
joes527
@Cacti: Not in the least. If someone has a plan to improve the situation. I’m 100% ready to get on board. But “improve the situation” doesn’t seem to be on anyone’s radar.
Till then, I’m all primum non nocere.
MomSense
@Roger Moore:
As a UU PK I will tell you that there was actually such a thing as the “Universalist Mafia”
lamh36
joes527
@Cacti:
No, but I don’t think lobbing in a few missiles would have been a good option either.
raven
@MomSense: And their HQ was on the mountain.
Keith G
@raven: I would assume so. And, I have heard reporting that artillery tubes which are gas shell capable (one of our prime targets) are being moved to residential neighborhoods. I suppose other would be dispersed in other ways.
Edit
@Keith G:
Should read
The delay is, hour by hour, decaying the effectiveness of such a strike.
raven
OMG Rachel thinks this debate is the right thing to do! The fucking sellout.
Cacti
@mistermix:
And if nothing is done, and more chemical attacks take place, the lament afterwards will be the “why was nothing done” lament of Rwanda.
Mandalay
@chopper:
Of course we are. SATSQ.
If you are still struggling with the concept, try it the other way around: if another country drops missiles on us, would we be ‘at war’ with that country? Jesus H. Christ.
raven
@Keith G: The old human shield ploy.
Cacti
@lamh36:
Clearly, we’re on a path to another Iraq.
Cacti
@Mandalay:
Fix’d.
Howard Beale IV
@piratedan: The biggest issue within Islam is the Sunni(Protestant)/Shia(Catholic) schism, with Saudi Arabia the flag-bearer for the Sunni’s (especially the extreme Wahhabi sect) vs. the Shia, with Iran as the flag-bearer.
Our overthrow of Iran is perhaps the biggest reason why this schism has been further inflamed, coupled with the Shah’s brutal use of the Savak. Prior to the rise of the Ayatollahs, Israel and Iran had damn good relations, but since the United States couldn’t leave well enough alone, we fucked the whole thing up.
Islam, save for certain few Sufi sects, has never had the equivalent of the Christian Reformation. And for that, Isalm will continue to pay a price within themselves. Of course, Christianity, even with its centuries long Reformation, will still have their outlier sects which veer into their own version of extreme fundamentalism (neo-Phariasees), which in the case of the US, has had a undue and unfortunate influence on its politics.
I don’t see a good solution here, short of the movie “Independence Day” scenario.
dogwood
@piratedan: the@piratedan:
The divisions among the various sects within Islam are exacerbated by the fact that countries like Syria , Lebanon, Jordan and Iraq are fake countries not unlike Yugoslavia. Finding “common cause” among such disparate groups is difficult when there is no sense of national identity.
raven
Rachel Maddow “Not only is it the fact that we are having the debate but the QUALITY of the debate is heartening” Not good enough here, give us OUR way right now.
Keith G
@mistermix: If it turns out to be ineffective because of target dispersal and target hardening, they might have a point. But most complex enterprises do not succeed or fail due to one thing.
NotMax
Shortest answer: It is a legal rather than an operational distinction.
Medium answer: In some senses, too, a distinction which is an artifact of earlier times when circumstances required mustering and military forces lacked the capability of widespread lethal engagement from a significant distance.
Omnes Omnibus
Because some people react to the idea of using military force in any and all situations as though it is going to result in Iraq or Vietnam every time. Kosovo didn’t. Libya didn’t. Desert Fox didn’t.
Also, one could argue that a state of war exists, but not a declared war. Semantic? Sure.
And before anyone decides to blast me for being in favor of bombing, I am not. I think the use of chemical weapon is a violation of international that would justify a military response if a proportional and effective military response were available. In the present case, I have doubts that such a response is possible.
eemom
@Cole @mix
Anyway, y’all two are both a pair of self-righteous assholes, even though I’m actually on your side of this argument.
The argument, at least here on Cole’s own blog that he never reads, has NOT been about whether it’s called a war or not.
raven
@eemom: But if you answer THAT question you are an idiot.
piratedan
@Howard Beale IV: @dogwood: so is the real question, not Arab Nationalism but rather Islamic sectarian states? It does seem that there are a healthy amount of secularists in play, but as has been mentioned, how far back do we go? Is the Caliphate model a legitimate answer?
jl
What I learned today from TPM is that McCain was caught playing poker on his smartphone during the hearings and he says he lost. He’ll probably decide that Syria needs sterner measures now.
Me, I think Obama made a goof when he said that Syria would cross a red line if it used chemical weapons. Saddam in Iraq used them and we did not care until it was convenient. Also not sure why ‘crossing a rad line’ means that the only measure we have is blowing stuff and people up. But I guess that is what hyper super duper world powers do.
joes527
@eemom: It is pretty simple.
extra-judicial killing is:
a) war
b) murder
c) ??
piratedan
@raven: hey, any sign that there are some R’s who aren’t completely bugfuck loony is a good sign to where perhaps, even some fairly common sense shit might get done.
eemom
@raven:
Lose-lose. But hey, we’ve moved on to Cole’s earworm now, so it’s all good.
Howard Beale IV
@piratedan: It’s the schism within the Caliphate that caused the split in the first place, and it has never been successfully resolved.
raven
@piratedan: The jury is out!
raven
@eemom: Yea, I guess I should feel lucky that he actually insulted me personally.
piratedan
@Howard Beale IV: well I don’t think you or I are going to be able to solve it tonite either Howard, it just shows that the problems have deep scars and I wish I could say what action or even if a lack of action would do to start seeing these folks as people rather than as objects, but I’m just a privileged white guy very aware of my own shortcomings.
Omnes Omnibus
@eemom: He is not really interested in the conversation on his blog. There is no reason he should be. He offers his opinion and then leaves open a forum for others to offer theirs. It is funny that when he does read the comments and engage, it is almost never with anyone who is not offering an opposing view as Manichean as his own. He doesn’t do nuance or subtlety in argument. It is what makes his rants really good when he is on target, but so very cringe-worthy when he is not.
Liberty60
What makes the “limited strike” concept so foolish is that we don’t get to dictate the terms of involvement.
Sure, we are only willing to lob a few missiles and call it a day.
But what is Syria decides to up the ante? And starts a low level campaign of car bombs, Stinger missile strikes on airliners, and shooting up malls at Christmas?
Are we committed to fighting this all the way through? Who here is willing to send their sons and daughters to do what it would take to finish the job, and put boots on the ground?
If we are so ambivalent and uncertain of our committment that we desire a “limited strike” then that by itself means we aren’t up to the challenge.
Keith G
@jl:
In the here and now, while I do not always agree with the outcome, I do trust Obama’s decision making process.
Therefore, as I said earlier, I have to think that this is more than just about dead civilians or saving face. I think a final straw is the perceived increasing momentum in the use of chemical agents and how that might lead to actions (inadvertent or not) that spread this to a cross-border military conflict. I think that is what brought Boehner around so quickly and will do the same for many others.
Yes this is a serious shit sammy and many of you have no idea (says I in speculation) of the crap that they fear will go down if nothing is done.
Edit. The issue is that if the delay is much longer will make a problematic outcome even more iffy.
raven
@Omnes Omnibus: He didn’t have any problem jumping ugly with me.
Jeremy
@Keith G: Well most presidents aren’t doves and not all are Hawks. I really think it’s more complex than center-left and center-right. LBJ one of the most progressive presidents in terms of domestic policy was hawkish. I think Obama is a pragmatist in the mold of Eisenhower. He is not a hawk but he is an Internationalist.
SiubhanDuinne
@PurpleGirl: I thought he was a wonderful actor. I was devastated when he died and still miss him.
mistermix
@eemom:
There’s always a hue and cry in the comments when I use the term “war” for the act of bombing Syria.
Omnes Omnibus
@raven: True. I still say my general point stands.
Howard Beale IV
@piratedan: And as long as there’s money and/or power attached, you can kiss any resolution as a dream. At least there’s a glimmer of hope with the Saudi’s as recent events have them off-kilter, and the the rank-and-file Iranian citizens have always seen the US in a favorable light (it’s the Guardian Council, the military and the Grand Ayatollah as the real problem in Iran)
raven
@Omnes Omnibus: Ding. Today is the 44th anniversary of Ho’s death. I came home and he gave up!
Omnes Omnibus
@mistermix: It has always been an ancillary point. And it was generally tossed out in response the Syria = Iraq arguments.
SiubhanDuinne
@jl:
Obama was not POTUS then.
Keith G
@Liberty60:
Nice speech, but putting more American boots on Islamic ground would only serve one group’s purpose, and it ain’t us.
IOW: Not. gonna. happen
SiubhanDuinne
@raven:
I love the smell of cause-and-effect in the morning.
raven
@mistermix: Does that mean you wrote the post?
Omnes Omnibus
@Liberty60: @Keith G: The argument is also a bit slippery slope. It implies that unless we are willing to go full WWII we should never use military force at all.
Keith G
@raven: So you never had the chance to say, “Hi, Ho”?
Keith G
@Omnes Omnibus:edit I should not talk to my sis on the phone and type – I misread your comment.
Goodbye sis.
raven
@SiubhanDuinne: You know I don’t think I knew it for years after I got out. Always thought it was just an interesting conincidink.
raven
@Keith G: No, I said “Bye Ho”!
Lurking Canadian
@Liberty60: I think it’s very unlikely that an attack on Syria now would cause Syria to launch some kind of retaliatory campaign against the US.
A more likely reaction, if Assad wanted to retaliate, would be escalation of the gas attacks, as a “Can’t make me!” tantrum.
Jeremy
@jl: Well it’s a lot more complex. I’m not a big fan of intervention in Syria but what the President plans to do will be very limited (taking out military infrastructure) and it seems like it’s a way of bringing the parties together in order to reach a resolution. It’s a gamble but the President has taken big risks throughout his presidency many times: Pushing for Health care reform during an economic crisis, Planning a raid on the Bin Laden compound instead of an air strike.
? Martin
Reading more. Here’s where Syria is really difficult.
1) Syria clearly has chemical weapons (whether Assad used them or not)
2) No matter what, some group in Syria is willing to use chemical weapons on civilians
3) The Syrian leaderships strongest in-state ally is Hezbollah
4) The strongest Syrian rebel group is allied with al Qaeda (Jabhat al-Nusra)
Regardless of who wins this civil war, we’re almost certain to be left with a state run by a group (if even temporarily) with access to and a willingness to use chemical weapons – either Assad, or Hezbollah, or an al Qaeda affiliate. That must make it highly attractive to simply destroy them – even if that action doesn’t influence the outcome of the civil war.
Liberty60
@Keith G: Oh like that’s better?
If you think the 9-11 freakout was bad for America, what will a years long terror campaign do to the Military-Industrial Complex, and us?
The American people aren’t willing to fight and die in or for Syria.
NotMax
@jl
Churchill (and he was not Prime Minister at the time), personally authorized the use of chemical weapons against civilians in Turkey.
One can hope that the consensus of humanity since then has moved beyond acquiesence and that opposition is more than aspirational.
raven
@? Martin: I don’t think we want to go blowing them up do we?
kc
@Cacti:
Wait, so after all that righteous shit about “browns killing browns,” you admit that bombing them won’t change anything? Well just punish “browns” (your word) for killing browns by killing more browns.
Sure, that makes sense.
Geez, i
Just Some Fuckhead
When you Obots turn on each other, it gets pretty vicious.
Omnes Omnibus
@raven: No. Blowing them up is bad.
Liberty60
@Lurking Canadian: You could be right- I don’t know who fanatical Assad is about staying alive, or how willing he is to take others down with him.
@Omnes Omnibus:
Well yes, unless you are willing to be at least as committed to the fight as your opponent, its stupid to launch an attack.
Are you really saying that we should go into this, only on the premise that he won’t fight back?
Omnes Omnibus
@Just Some Fuckhead: When did you quit being a Thought Leader?
Jeremy
Also I don’t understand why some are saying “are we prepared to fight this through ?”
Last time I checked this was a limited strike that would be a response to chemical weapons. There are no boots on the ground, and no regime change. If you want to have an actual argument then weigh the value of a strike instead of comparing it to Iraq and Afghanistan when they are not comparable.
Mandalay
@? Martin:
How on earth would that be achieved?
rda909
So Rwandan Genocide…good or bad that Bill Clinton didn’t have the US military intervene to stop the carnage?
xian
@Howard Beale IV: that Protestant/catholic mapping is wack. might as well say Roman or Easteen Orthodox.
Keith G
@Liberty60:
Aaaand they are not going to fight and die in or for Syria.. They/we are not…are not…are not… (one more time)…are not.
Omnes Omnibus
@Liberty60:
Actually, I have being saying throughout this that I don’t see a reasonable a proportional and effective military action that we can take. As a result, I have been opposed to strikes. OTOH, I think the idea that any military involvement must be premised on a willingness to go balls to the wall is absurd. Proportionality matters.
Omnes Omnibus
@rda909: I think that if there was something that we could have done and we we did not do it, we were in the wrong. I have seen arguments on both sides as to whether the international community could have had an effect.
NotMax
@Lurking Canadian
It does not excuse or in any way justify the deployment of chemical weaponry nor the onus of deciding to use them, but one has to question how much spot disruptions in supply lines had depleted government stores of conventional arms and munitions in that area.
Keith G
@rda909: Clinton wished he had. It is certainly very unfortunate that such butchery was not confronted. Just as it’s a shame that the the Armenian Genocide was not confronted.
And others.
jamick6000
I’m not one of the dumb commenters calling for war with Syria, I am one of the smart ones calling for this
? Martin
@raven: No, probably not. But you can destroy the facilities used to make it. We’ve bombed those kinds of facilities before – such as in Sudan. (Regardless of whether that factory actually produced chemical weapons or not, we believed that it did and felt it was sufficiently safe to bomb).
Oh, yeah, Clinton was just like Bush too.
But my comment above underscores just how unique this situation – it’s difficult to use any prior conflict as a precedent here. It also indicates how bad the ‘best’ outcome here is, including doing nothing.
jamick6000
@Cacti: you and Pam Geller’s old buddy “Little Green Footballs” are the only ones in the blogosphere who care about Arabs.
eemom
@Omnes Omnibus:
Speaking of cause and effect, ya lost me there….unless you mean “really good” in the sense of effective sound-bitery without any reference to substance.
Anyway, what I meant with my original comment is that I actually think the discussion of this issue amongst the commenters on many of these threads HAS been rather substantive and nuanced.
And I don’t think it does the BlogLord — who can never be “arsed” (h/t AL of the Bronx British Quarter) to read the same, any credit to come stomping in with his standard pulled out of the ass whimsy on the subject 8 hours after it has, in fact, been treated with some modicum of the respect it deserves. On his own blog, that he never reads.
Villago Delenda Est
@Howard Beale IV:
While this is all significant in reference to Syria, there is another issue that set this all up.
A long, devastating drought that has very badly damaged Syria’s ability to feed itself. The drought set everything up.
Now people are desperate, and the shit has hit the fan.
El Cid
@rda909: The US military didn’t need to intervene per se. A UN force was already there; it could have done the small scale intervention such as shutting down the roads being used to transport genocidalist forces throughout the countryside.
You wouldn’t have had to blow up all sorts of targets etc. Just stopping the logistical access of the organized, centrally directed genocidalist forces. (The RPF, however, threatened to treat any UN intervention as a belligerent force, even if they were intervening to stop massacres.)
The US opposed the notion of the UN force acting. Some UN forces were already there.
Omnes Omnibus
@eemom: I agree with you on the generally substantive nature of the discussion on this topic.
As far as the “really good” comment, Cole does a really good rabble-rousing speech type of thing when he gets wound up. It is not nuanced, it is not subtle, but it can be quite effective. It also is not my style, but my style has its drawbacks as well. Lawyerly and WASPy doesn’t tend to be inspirational.*
*Yeah, Sam Adams, blah, blah, blah…
Jeremy
@Keith G: Thank you ! This is the issue I have with some arguing against strikes. They act like troops are going on the ground and the mission is regime change and nation building when this is more comparable to the strikes against Sudan, Libya in the 80’s, and Iraq in the 90’s for violating UN mandates.
If we are going to have a serious argument then those who oppose it need to stop pretending that this is like the Iraq war in 2003. Too many people in this country act like children who can’t have a factual, intelligent debate.
Villago Delenda Est
@Omnes Omnibus:
This. I don’t see how a strike will alter the situation that much. Oh, it might boost some news ratings for a bit, and the usual corporate parasite asshats will be able to hire some extra hookers and snort some additional coke, but other than that…
jl
@? Martin:
” That must make it highly attractive to simply destroy them [the chemical weapons in Syria].”
But do we know enough about where they are to destroy them? Do we know enough about where the production facilities are to prevent them from making more in the short run?
Or will there remain a lot of chemical weapons around the country, but we just make the Syrian regime weaker and the scenario of them being let loose to whoever can pick them up more likely?
If we did declare war and invade Syria, the issues (edit: of how to deal with Syrian chemical warfare) would be less complex (though the cost would be enormous and I’m not suggesting ‘going McCain’ here).
So, will the strikes be more symbolic than anything else?
(edit: and if more symbolic than anything else, therefore still ‘aspirational’ except with some blown up stuff and more dead people?)
Mandalay
@? Martin:
Regardless???
Just to be clear, it was a pharmaceutical factory that was not producing chemical weapons, and there were no valid reasons to bomb it….
Omnes Omnibus
@Villago Delenda Est: At the same time, the idea that someone could use chemical weapons with impunity rankles. I hope that there will be significant negative consequences for Assad if, as it appears, he either ordered or permitted the use.
Cacti
@kc:
I know a policy other than “let allah sort it out” requires some of that abstract thinking that you hate so much, Governor Palin, but the purpose of any intervention would be as a deterrent against future use of chemical weapons on civilian populations, not to pick a winner in the outcome of Syria’s civil war.
Is your point really that a military strike against belligerents who launched a chemical attack on non-combatants, makes the belligerents qualitatively the same as the people they killed, because both died from military action?
Wow, that’s mind-bendingly stupid. Might as well argue that the Battle of the Bulge and the My Lai Massacre were the same, because both involved people dying at the hands of US troops.
Cacti
@jamick6000:
What are you babbling about?
Omnes Omnibus
@Cacti:
This is actually why the UN should take some action. I could see pressure on the Russians to pull their support for Assad as a reasonable place for the international community to start. Use of chemical weapons should make a country an international pariah.
Omnes Omnibus
@Mandalay: One takes action with the best information one has at the time.
Cacti
@Omnes Omnibus:
I agree, and my position on intervention has been based on this all along. Letting a chemical attack take place with no repercussions on an international level, sets a very dangerous precedent for the future.
kc
@Cacti:
Is your point really that a military strike against belligerents who launched a chemical attack on non-combatants, makes the belligerents qualitatively the same as the people they killed, because both died from military action?
No, dumb-ass.
John Cole
@eemom: Why do you all think I don’t read the blog or the comments.
Just because I don’t think you had anything to say worth responding to doesn’t mean I didn’t give you five seconds to read your comment. I just decide most of the time that you don’t deserve another five seconds of my life to respond.
Cacti
@kc:
So, you have no point then?
Unsurprising.
Keith G
@jl:
Symbolism is not unimportant.
Remember that there is a chance that sooner rather than later that someone other than the al-Assad, family or even the Alawites will be running Syria. They need to be made aware that using chemical weapons will cause a setback and not be a help.
Cacti
@Keith G:
Or that not being a signatory to the 1993 Convention on Chemical Weapons doesn’t give them an out for gas attacks on civilians.
Jewish Steel
@Omnes Omnibus:
I think if we got you a really solid rhythm section your message would get over.
Mart
So we super double promise that it will only last 90 days and no troops on the ground. We go ahead and launch. In response Syria lobs some shit at Isreal, or a terror attack by Iranians with Syrian ties at some embassy or another, etc, etc..
Think we get an “official” war then, not one of these fakers?
eemom
@John Cole:
Oh….well, fair ’nuff, then.
Did I use up my WHOLE five seconds with my last comment or
Omnes Omnibus
@Jewish Steel: I’ll give Sly and Robbie a call.
Mandalay
@Omnes Omnibus:
Well no. That’s way too casual for my taste.
In that particular case it was later revealed that the information used to justify the bombing was flawed and flimsy. Your maxim should really be “one only takes serious action based on the compelling evidence one has at the time”.
As a disappointing aside, the antics with Congress have caused everyone to stop considering the lack of hard evidence against Assad. Now it’s all about boots on the ground, the defendant is presumed to be guilty, and we’re just arguing over the sentence to be dished out.
The evidence for attacking Sudan was bullshit, and the evidence for attacking Iraq was bullshit. You’d think we’d learn, but no….
chopper
@Mandalay:
If we were a pisspot country with no means to possibly fight back? I dunno.
My whole point is that I don’t really consider it a war if one side isn’t even able to engage the other. Bringing up the example of the us getting attacked is meaningless as to that.
eemom
@Omnes Omnibus:
Well, I got lawyerly and Mediterranean…..and look how that’s turned out.
Cacti
Hmmm…just barely saw this one:
If true, Assad’s pretty much run out of plausible deniability.
Keith G
@Mart: Or maybe a planet-killing meteorite will strike earth exterminating all mammalian life.
Mandalay
@Keith G:
This is nothing to do with symbolism; it’s about saving face.
The symbolism ship sailed a long time ago, and we really didn’t care at the time.
Omnes Omnibus
@Mandalay:
No, my “maxim” was quite simple. One can only base one’s decisions on the best evidence one has at the time.
BillinGlendaleCA
@Omnes Omnibus: Agreed. Many thought Bush’s evidence for the Iraq invasion was “compelling”. It was, however neither the best evidence at the time nor factual.
Keith G
@Mandalay: Quite correct and that is exactly what saving face is all about. “Our words have meaning just as your actions have consequences.” That is one way that one can try to keep a conflict from spreading in a troubled world filled with less than rational humans.
Omnes Omnibus
@BillinGlendaleCA: Exactly.
Mandalay
@Omnes Omnibus:
Well history shows that the decision should have been to leave the pharmaceutical factory alone, based on the best evidence at the time. That “best evidence” was worthless.
BobS
@Cacti: @Cacti:You seem to know alot about “norms of international law”. Maybe you could expound on the “norms of international law” that the United States would be violating if we were to take it upon ourselves to attack Syria without UN approval, inasmuch as Syria’s alleged use of chemical weapons 2 weeks ago in the course of a civil war being fought within it’s borders pretty much eliminates any argument we could make about acting in self-defense.
Mandalay
@Cacti:
I agree. That evidence – the documents rather than the testimony – might prove very persuasive, and certainly more powerful than anything that Kerry has offered.
However, there is this oddity…
Why on earth would someone with damning evidence against Assad now wait up to two weeks to release it? I can’t make sense of that.
Cacti
@BobS:
Well, if you’re asking a serious question, it helps not to make an argument that is factually incorrect.
Syria has previously shelled targets across the Turkish border that resulted in the deaths of Turkish civilians.
Anyway, Turkey has a common border with Syria and is a member of NATO, as is the United States. Turkey supports Syrian intervention, and has credible self-defense claims concerning the civil war, and the use of chemical weapons in that conflict.
Next question?
tybee
@chopper: “i’m not even for this stupid bombing.”
you are a lying sack of shit.
@Cacti:
@Cacti:
@Cacti:
@Cacti:
but i knew that already.
Cacti
@Mandalay:
Good question.
tybee
@Josie:
this
Omnes Omnibus
@Mandalay: @Cacti:
Verifying the documents?
tybee
@Quaker in a Basement:
cacti and david can’t quite grasp that point.
Omnes Omnibus
@tybee: Hit a couple of military bases.
Cacti
@Omnes Omnibus:
Or possibly using at as a bargaining chip for residency and waiting for that to go through.
If he has what he claims, handing it over to a US ally like Turkey is tantamount to signing his own death sentence in Syria.
? Martin
@Mandalay:
Not my point. My only point was that we determined that a suspected chemical weapons plant was safe to bomb.
You know, when it’s something you favor, you’re willing to give intentions the same value as outcomes (bully pulpit), but when it’s something you don’t favor, you’ll nit-pick the subject to death. At least try for some consistency.
tybee
@raven:
Ho won.
tybee
@Omnes Omnibus:
so no civilians work at military bases?
Omnes Omnibus
@tybee: Okay, you are right. No military action can ever be taken that does not risk at least one civilian death.
ETA: From this, do you posit that no military action should ever be attempted? To me, the key should be proportionality.
tybee
@Omnes Omnibus:
as was indicated earlier, killing civilians to protest killing civilians proves what?
ETA: if regime change was the objective, i could agree to killing a few innocent bystanders but to simply punish assad for killing children by killing just a few more…? good plan, eh?
Cacti
@tybee:
So children work at Syrian military bases?
Omnes Omnibus
@tybee: If you would read my comments throughout the many threads on this topic, I am opposed to military strikes since I don’t think they will accomplish anything. However, the argument in favor is that the strikes would dissuade or discourage Assad from future chemical weapons use, thus saving lives. In addition, strikes would put other potential users on notice that using chemical weapons has negative consequences.
? Martin
@tybee:
Is our intent to kill civilians? No.
Is their intent to kill civilians? Yes.
Do we go to great length to avoid civilian casualties? Yes.
There’s the moral distinction you’re working so hard to not find.
Cacti
@tybee:
That might be the worst argument you’ve put forward.
So, if the Syrian Air Force hires civilian mechanics to maintain their planes, their airfields become a civilian target.
Dios mio.
tybee
@Cacti:
so you guarantee no chirrens will be kilt by the bombing you claim to not to want?
bwahahahaha.
tybee
@Cacti:
so you’re willing to kill more civilians to protest killing civilians. good plan.
Omnes Omnibus
@tybee: Does the fact that chemical weapons were used bother you? Or do you see them as more or less the same as conventional weapons?
Mandalay
@? Martin:
It’s hardly nit-picking to point out that our evidence for bombing the factory in Sudan, and invading Iraq, were worthless.
We are now on the verge of attacking Syria based mostly on circumstantial evidence. The lessons of history seem highly relevant.
tybee
@? Martin:
so let the facts be known about who gassed whom.
“just trust us about them eeeeeevil moooslins”.
i’ve seen this movie before.
with evidence that we can examine and trust? regime change and deal with the aftermath of a rebel victory.
no evidence? just another bunch of liars and war criminals.
w
BobS
@Cacti: You’re right, of course, about the border incidents, all of which post-date our NATO ally arming and allowing anti-Assad forces passage into and back out of Syria.
Donald
@Cacti: Turkey and Syria both have horrific human rights records. Turkey was at war with its Kurds during the 90’s–tens of thousands died (many killed by American supplied weapons). We all know what Syria has been up to.
So I’m not sure I’d use the behavior of these two states as setting a standard to be followed–sure, a simple exchange of high explosives across the border might not seem like such a big deal to them. Maybe Mafia guys think it’s okay to beat someone up so long as nobody is killed. And maybe some American liberals think the same way.
Didn’t read the rest of the thread. It seemed to be heading straight down the usual sewer.
Mnemosyne
@Mandalay:
The evidence of who the perpetrators were is currently circumstantial. The evidence that there was, in fact, a chemical attack is not circumstantial, unless you’re one of those people who thinks that Medicins Sans Frontieres/Doctors Without Borders are government stooges who are lying to support the US government.
tybee
@Omnes Omnibus:
chemical weapons use bothers me.
show me the evidence. show me the plan to “punish” assad. explain to me the expected results.
tybee
@Mnemosyne: “The evidence of who the perpetrators were is currently circumstantial.”
but let us bomb them anyway? sorry. i won’t buy that. been lied to before. once bitten…
Omnes Omnibus
@Mandalay: Circumstantial evidence =/= worthless evidence. Sometimes, direct evidence is not available, but circumstantial evidence is overwhelming. If you open the locked door of a windowless and find a person standing over a freshly dead body with smoking gun in his hand, you have no direct evidence that the one shot the other. You do, however, have strong circumstantial evidence of it.
tybee
what this boils down to is: who do you want to win the syrian civil war?
assad or the rebel forces?
you pays yer money and you lives with the consequences.
Omnes Omnibus
@tybee: I OPPOSE the fucking strikes because I don’t think that we can do anything proportional and effective. I think we have the just cause prongs of just war theory down. I simply don’t think we have a proportional and effective military option. Because of that, I don’t think that we should take military action.
tybee
@Omnes Omnibus:
circumstantial evidence does not equal indisputable evidence, either.
show us what you got. the US gummint claims to have indisputable evidence.
show us.
tybee
@Omnes Omnibus:
then you and i mostly agree.
Omnes Omnibus
@tybee:
I am not the US government.
Culture of Truth
Why, every time we come up on a significant crisis like Syria, does a significant portion of people I read online act like a military strike is not a declaration of war? There is no such thing as air strikes without war.
1. When Congress declares war, you’ll know it.
2. a missile strike is an act of war. When Syria responds by declaring war, on the U.S. you’ll know it.
3. To say there is no such thing as air stikes without war is to belittle real war.
4. This has been true for a long time, and will be true in the future. Not every action, even missile strikes, between nations, is “war”.
tybee
@Omnes Omnibus:
so your evidence for a military strike is not indisputable.
then we totally agree.
FlipYrWhig
@Mandalay:
Maybe he’s working with Glenn Greenwald.
Omnes Omnibus
@tybee: I am persuaded by the evidence that I have seen so far. I will be interested in seeing what the UN inspectors report.
Culture of Truth
Offhand, I’d say because it isn’t.
FlipYrWhig
@tybee: maybe what it boils down to is, instead, that when it comes to a crisis in a foreign land, the US should only address it through the manner and means hashed out by its own Congress, in accordance with its own Constitution. Obama said, “Here’s what I think. What about you guys?” And now the people’s representatives argue. I have no problem with this on any level. I’d have a problem if the deliberation said the military shouldn’t act, and it did anyway, but until that happens, this is exactly how this shit is supposed to work.
tybee
@Omnes Omnibus:
it will be interesting to see what the UN reports and, if it points to assad, what the russians will say.
tybee
@FlipYrWhig:
i agree.
Mandalay
@Omnes Omnibus:
True, but I don’t agree that the evidence against Assad is “overwhelming”, and your analogy was inadequate. The evidence is strong, but given the action we are proposing to take, I don’t think it is (yet) strong enough.
This column from James Fallows provides a more objective look, and discusses the relative motivations of Assad and his opponents for a chemical weapons attack while inspectors were in Damascus.
OT: A separate column from Fallows echoes some points that you have been making.
FlipYrWhig
@Culture of Truth: or, to come at it another way, because the Constitution is muddled when it comes to distinguishing between the war powers of the executive branch and those of the legislative branch. So there’s a semantic dispute around what counts as “war” that really reflects a tension between those two branches of the government. And I like that Obama wants to work our way back towards greater clarity on that.
Omnes Omnibus
@Mandalay:
Please point to where I said the evidence against Assad is overwhelming.
jamick6000
@Culture of Truth:
Yes, what congress *calls* something determines what it is, in the real world. Are you 5 years old?
it’s pretty real if you are on the receiving end of an airstrike.
patroclus
Pretending that all wars are the same doesn’t seem, to me, like a particularly convincing method of opposing the proposed bombing of Syria. I’m with Omnes, I oppose the bombing because I don’t think it’s going to accomplish what we want, but I don’t like the simplistic manner of this post, which doesn’t seem to deal with the actual arguments of what to do in response to the Syrian military’s use of chemical weapons. I favor sanctions and diplomacy and going to the UN and waiting for the full report of the UN inspectors, and arming some rebels and more refugee aid. But I’m not going to pretend that bombing supporters are advocating a full-scale war.
WarGames was a fun little movie, but it was fiction and pretty non-plausible and it dealt with thermonuclear war and end of the world scenarios. The use of chemical weapons is a reality and requires more thoughtful analysis than this. And WOPR got destroyed in WarGames II by a much smarter computer.
Mnemosyne
@tybee:
That’s what you don’t seem to get — none of the people you’re accusing of being warmongering warmongerers who love war are in favor of the US acting unilaterally. Not one. I’m not, Omnes isn’t, even Cacti isn’t. But if we don’t downplay the chemical weapons use and pretend it’s no big deal, then you immediately accuse us of wanting war.
There are more than two sides and more than two possible actions here. It is completely possible to both deplore the use of chemical weapons AND think that unilateral intervention by the US would be counterproductive. But apparently your tiny brain can’t hold two thoughts at once, so anyone disgusted by the chemical weapons use must be calling for immediate war.
Omnes Omnibus
@patroclus:
Until and unless Tom Levenson writes one, you won’t see such a post on this blog.
ETA: The two FPers who deal with this issue the most are Cole and mistermix and they have staked out their positions.
Mandalay
@Omnes Omnibus:
Please point to where I said you said the evidence against Assad is overwhelming.
Omnes Omnibus
@Mandalay: Dude, did you edit the comment to which I was replying? It doesn’t look the same.
patroclus
@FlipYrWhig: I have a problem with it because I think Congress is going to say yes and then Obama will have no options but to go through with the bombing, which I don’t think will accomplish all that much. I’d prefer it if the military option wasn’t the only thing we’re talking about. At first, I was pleased that Obama decided to go to Congress; now, I think he’s boxed himself in as to the policy. He made an adroit political move (to get his critics to own the policy too), but the policy outcome, to me, seems more important, and I think we’re about to make a big mistake.
patroclus
@Omnes Omnibus: Yeah, I guess it’s one of those “you oppose the bombing with the allies you have; not the ones you might wish to have at a later date” kind of thing. John sounds like Rand Paul today – and I don’t mean that as a compliment. All wars are not the same – pretending that they are seems counter-productive to me.
chopper
@tybee:
I’ve explained about thirty fucking times that I’m against bombing Syria.
I guess I have to make it thirty-one. I’m against bombing Syria. Is it it sinking in yet?
Mandalay
@Omnes Omnibus:
I fixed some bloopers but changed absolutely nothing with regard to alleging you claimed that the evidence against Assad was overwhelming. You have never said that AFAIK, and I didn’t allege it.
My point was that circumstantial evidence, and “hard” evidence from Israel, is insufficient grounds for attacking Assad. His foes have a huge incentive to initiate a chemical weapons attack, then make the world believe that it came from Assad. It is likely that the chemical attacks came from Assad, but it is by no means certain (as Jay Carney is now careful to acknowledge). I hope that some hard evidence turns up since Russia is currently taunting Obama at every opportunity.
The stakes are so high that the evidence needs to be compelling.
patroclus
@Mandalay: I think what is likely is that the chemical weapons came from the Syrian military but that personalizing it to Assad seems uncertain. Which is why I want the UN inspectors’ final report to be provided to the Security Council first. But Kerry said today that that won’t happen for two weeks or so, and they won’t affix blame because that’s not in their mandate. So, we’re not really going to ever know – which is troubling.
fuckwit
Oh the TBOGG UNIT has been breached.
Well I thought about it and I still think Cole is right on this in general.
I ain’t no Constitutional scholar, but this seems pretty clear to me. The Constitution specifically authorizes the Congress to have authority over mercenary non-declared-war actions, such as punishing terrorists, er pirates, and other international outlaws. So they did think this through, and built in a way to excercise military muscle without a declared war…. and gave authority for that to the Congress.
Which isn’t to say all miltary action is a declared war. But it does, very often, lead to them, there’s an undetermined risk there, and there’s nothing specious about that slippery slope argument. It’s a gamble: do we win this in a cakewalk or does it turn into a delcared war (against someone powerful enough to declare one against us), or in a Vietnam/Iraq/Afghanistan quagmire (against someone who can’t really declare war).
Jewish Steel
@fuckwit: TBU = 500 comments. But I’m game if you are. What can we fight about?
Soonergrunt
@Omnes Omnibus: Umm, I’m pretty sure I’ve had a few things to say.
Omnes Omnibus
@Soonergrunt: My apologies. Yes, you have.
Omnes Omnibus
@Soonergrunt: @Omnes Omnibus: Further to that, SG, you have posted quite nuanced pieces that have tried to address multiple issues and viewpoints.
AxelFoley
@Cacti:
Damn, I’ve never seen a blog host get ethered in his own blog like that.
cvstoner
@The Sheriff’s A Ni-:
Perhaps Africa should make war on us then?
Keith G
Even if a quick and limited military strike against selected Syrian military assets had some merit (and I believe it did) the delay had not only given Asad time to move around the type of target we should have chosen, but it has give Putin’s
USSRRussia the chance to move some of his naval assets onto the scene. Some fancy thinking and plain luck may be needed to keep this from becoming a diplomatic and PR fiasco.Putin would love a chance to force the US to back down and Obama’s current choices in decision making may give Putin an early Christmas.
sherparick
I recently read a book that greatly affected me, “To End All Wars: a Story of Loyalty and Dissent.” Its subject was the United Kingdom in WWI and those who opposed that war. It has made me dubious about all military adventures, that the “good” they will do outweighs the fact that, as W. T. Sherman stated it best: “It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, more vengeance, more desolation. War is hell.”
Syria is already in this hell, a civil war arising out of a natural disaster (a seven year drought) and ancient historical hatreds between Sunnis on one side and Alawites, Shia, Christians, Druze, and Kurds on the other. Now we are preparing to launch more hell with the “hope” that first, despite the precedents, this will discourage others from using WMD (NBC), even in civil wars being fought to the death, and second that by weakening the side with more firepower while trying to influence the other side with the most people we can create conditions for a peace conference will result. Good luck with that. I don’t think it worth having more blood on our hands.
For those interested in a great book, I certainly can recommend:
http://www.amazon.com/End-All-Wars-Rebellion-1914-1918/dp/B008PIC0T8
BobS
@AxelFoley: Damn, I know.
And I’ve never read Axel Foley offer an original thought to advance a discussion- the limits of your abilities seem to be pointing at what someone else has written and writing “yeah! yeah!” with various degrees of enthusiasm. Come to think of it, that lack of originality applies to what you call yourself as well.
I'mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet
@tybee: The UN report isn’t going to point to Assad or anyone else. As others have mentioned, that’s not their mandate.
You’ve asked others for the evidence that the US has presented. Google will bring it up for you, very easily.
HTH.
Cheers,
Scott.
eastriver
You all have it wrong. The war is already happening. Nothing we do or don’t do will change that. If we attack we would only be adding to the war.
libarbarian
IF I punch you in the face, does that mean we’re in a fight?
Usually.
tybee
@Mnemosyne:
i’m for waiting until all the evidence is in. you and the cacti gang can’t wait to get blood on your hands.
good plan you have.
and, just for grins: http://beforeitsnews.com/middle-east/2013/08/russia-has-just-delivered-advanced-anti-ship-missiles-to-syria-video-2453842.html
tybee
@chopper:
yup. :)
tybee
@I’mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet:
on the Great Googly, i find claims that assad did it, the rebels did it, the saudis did it and perhaps little green men did it.
i suspect you’re on the LGM team.
libarbarian
When weighing the possible cost in lives, you also have to count the expected mass executions if Assad “wins” and takes back large liberated areas. There is every reason to expect 10s of thousands or more. What happens if Assad uses Chems again and again? If he used them to no consequence then he will probably continue to use them when he feels it is advantageous. If he uses them another 1,2,5,10 times …
There really are no good options. I guess that’s the real world.
glasnost
The two most pernicious fallacies in thinking about this conflict- and they are omnipresent and messing up everyone’s brain:
#1. Nothing we can do can stop the killing
#2. We don’t have a dog in this fight b/c Al Nusra
#1 is technically true but misleading. The range of options we are considering can’t guarantee an immediate halt to the killing anymore than one US infantry division could conquer hitler’s germany. But what we do could still *Help* stop the killing, by contributing, in however minor a way, to Assad’s downfall. That distinction has been utterly lost.
The second one is by far the dumbest and most evil. The Sunni rebels contain SOME extremsists – and the media is full, i wonder why, of sensationalist bullshit scare stories – and thus we KNOW that the extremists are all Al-Queda and they’re all going to take over the next government and jeez, why even bother right? I know dude!
Hey assholes: the process of post-Assad government formation is a HIGHLY UNPREDICTABLE THING and could easily give us a government in Syria that is more or less okay. I doubt it will be great, but if we would actually get off our asses and help, we might be able to influence it to be less than terrible. No one, Syrian rebels included, wants to meet the fate of the Taliban. It’s not a popular model anymore, maybe you noticed.
I’m so tired of this maximum extrapolation, false equivalence bullshit and I desperately wish a front pager would make this point. Assad is a 10 on the 10 scale of ruthless depravity. Maybe before he was an 8.5, but right now he’s basically Pol Pot in a suit. ANYTHING will be better for Syrians than him winning the war.
glasnost
For fucks sake, the false flag operations thing is just stupid at this point. The US’s report makes that very clear, relying on obvious common sense and observable circumstances as much as hidden intelligence.
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/us-syrian-chemical-attack-killed-1-429-including
Here, read the stupid assessment and may the whole “OMG maybe the rebels did it” die a well-deserved death. Another thing a front pager should get around to, mmk?
glasnost
The evidence is over-fucking-whelming that Assad forces did the attack. One side is capable of launching massive coordinated rocket attacks and one side is not. The idea that the rebels could massively penetrate Assad-held areas of damascus and the Assad forces would just roll over and let them while the rebels assembled 4 times more artilltery than they have in the whole country and fire it at their own territory instead of the vulnerable heart of assad damascus next to them is hair-rattlingly stupid. That doesn’t even get into the intercepted communications from Alawaite military saying “hey, let’s use sarin on these fuckheads” which I doubt Barack Obama is making up.
The evidence is OVERWHELMING. There’s no remotely plausible alternative. It’s like a debate about how if 100 mig fighters flew in formation over damascus tomorrow, i wonder who it was? No, you don’t because only the Alawite side has 100 trained goddamn pilots and jets and if the rebels captured that, you would know about it.
tybee
@glasnost:
so the reason the details of said proof won’t be declassified is what?
I'mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet
@tybee: You like moving the goalposts, don’t you?
Have fun.
Cheers,
Scott.
tybee
@I’mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet:
you like spouting the party line with no proof of the validity of said line.
chopper
@libarbarian:
depends on how i respond, don’t it?
if i punch you in the face and walk away, and you’re a retarded dude in a wheelchair who can’t even fight back, were we ‘in a fight’?
chopper
@glasnost:
NANOTHERMITE!!
libarbarian
@chopper:
Yeah, there are some outlier circumstances wherein one could punch another guy in the face and not be in a fight. I imagine I could deck Gandhi straight in the nose and not get into a fight. And, yeah, a retarded guy in a wheelchair might be a case too. But don’t imagine that just because a guy can’t hit you directly back that you aren’t in a “fight” in the long term. He might not be able to tag you back right away, but he damn well might be able to nurse his grievance and find ways of getting revenge down the line.
Assad can’t punch us back directly, but there are probably ways he can get back at us. He funds Hezbollah and they can certainly kick us in the shins. We shouldn’t fool ourselves into thinking that we can just lob some bombs at him, dust off our hands, and be done with it.
chopper
@libarbarian:
in the long term, who knows? maybe syria would declare war on us someday even if we didn’t bomb them.
Thymezone
Well the debate isn’t going to last two weeks. As for the war fears you write about, I don’t know where those are coming from. It didn’t happen in Libya. The resolution they are asking for excludes anything like real war. There is no capacity available for a large troop buildup and invasion. Neither the country nor congress is any mood for that path. Nor is the administration, nor are the allies. So the fact that it’s all scary to people who have nothing better to do that sit around and type out their worst fears onto keyboards .. doesn’t mean it’s on the table, in fact there isn’t even a table for it to be on right now. One of the points that Obama is trying to make, if only some people would actually listen, is that these are not binary choices. The choice is not between doing nothing, and recreating Iraq. The choice is between doing nothing, and doing a fairly small something .. and the point is, we have to learn to be able to do that, or else we are always to be stuck with the Two Bad Choices, nothing, or war. And that’s how we get sucked into wars, by thinking that way. It’s a stupid goddam position and I seriously question the judgment of anyone who can’t think outside that stupid box.
Rome Again
The man who got everything wrong about Iraq is now telling me that this just like Iraq?
Sorry, no dice… and by the way, did it ever occur to you that you yourself have a drinking problem?
tonygus
simple answer:
if they call it war there are laws to stop them.
So just don’t call it war, get it ?