This weekend, President Obama partially convinced John “Bomb-Bomb-Bomb” McCain and his zany sidekick, Lindsey “More Butch than 10,000 Teabaggers” Graham, of the wisdom of his Syria intervention policy. The hotheaded duo imply they were lured onboard by assurances of extra ka-booms, covert operations and other cool war-stuff executed by not-their-kids.
Good for Obama for passing the Syria hot potato to Congress, as is right and proper. But this Obama supporter will be rooting for Congress to say no. Having McCain on the “other side” makes that a little easier.
McCain, who had previously rejected the administration’s Syria intervention proposals because he deemed them too soft, and who surely knows that the public will reject a full-blown war as too hard, requires a war footing that his Goldilocks sense gauges as “just right.” McCain and Graham’s comments after their weekend meeting with the president signaled their tentative willingness to climb into the sack: McCain said a vote against the authorization of force resolution “would be catastrophic” and “undermine the credibility of the United States.”
But as Steve Benen notes, that rationale doesn’t make much sense:
By his reasoning, any time any president prepares to use military force abroad, Congress must agree or risk undermining the credibility of the United States. But what if lawmakers have sincere policy differences with an administration and they’re right to oppose intervention abroad? To hear McCain tell it, that wouldn’t much matter — lawmakers should feel an obligation to approve a resolution anyway.
And, as Benen also noted, McCain and his South Carolina appendage appear poised to withdraw their support if they deem the strike plans insufficiently warlike after the details emerge. Sadly, this pair of Klingon wannabes is what passes for foreign policy “wise men” in the Republican Party.
With Boehner now signaling his willingness to go along, it’s clear that Obama has dialed the correct sleep number into the GOPosturepedic — so far. How far rightward is he willing to be dragged to keep their support, if at all? Launching an attack on another country invites all sorts of unpredictable outcomes, which is one reason it truly should be a last resort. Aligning an agenda with the likes of McCain, Graham, Boehner, etc., also has all kinds of potential for blow-back. Still thinking this is a mistake.
[X-posted at Rumproast]
cleek
i wonder which country is going to appoint itself as the enforcer of the international norm against allowing one country to get away with an unprovoked attack against another ?
none?
you mean we can only get away with this because we’re the biggest kid on the block?
hooray for us.
Anonymous At Work
Kind of assuming that Boehner has any power in the House except allowing votes. 30% Democratic caucus and a highly-variable % of Republican caucus will vote “no” and that might be enough to sink it.
Yatsuno
@cleek: We also have the most toys, and we are the country the rest of the world uses so they don’t have to spend nearly so much on their militaries. This is why they get all the nice things.
GregB
I am in the ‘this is a big mistake’ school of thought.
There are far too many outside actors involved in this mess and there is much incentive for them to muck around and make this a wider regional war.
Much of this is the ongoing proxy war between Iran, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf Emirates, Israel, Turkey and their related ethno-religious groups. Not to mention the US. Russia and China and their jockeying for world resources.
It’s a mad, mad, mad, mad world.
Belafon
I suspect the meeting between Obama and McCain went like this:
What Obama said: John, we are going to perform a limited strike to reduce their ability to make chemical weapons, and scare Assad out of using them again. We are not attacking to kill Assad or enable regime change.
What McCain heard: John, we are going to perform a
limitedstrike toreduce their ability to make chemical weapons, and scare Assad out of using them again. We are not attacking to kill Assad orenable regime change.You know how there are those people that even if they agree with you, you still don’t want to be associated with them?
Villago Delenda Est
There MUST be a spare 16 ton weight that can accidentally be dropped on these two assholes, somewhere.
Poopyman
I wonder if POTUS didn’t tell the Bomb-Em-Now twins “Look, this is the proof that al Qaeda launched home-made rockets full of sarin, here’s the intel that shows where these guys are, and the only bombing is going to come down on their heads”.
Of course I’m also expecting my own sparkle pony, so caveat emptor.
Villago Delenda Est
@Belafon:
I’m reminded of this Far Side cartoon...
Linda Featheringill
I am naive enough to think that this might actually work out to be okay. Congress will require some time to milk the situation of all the drama available and the world could use that delay.
A lot can happen in Syria over the course of the next few weeks. I’m going to wait and see.
jeffreyw
@Villago Delenda Est: I loaded that thing and now I’m older and deeper in debt.
xenos
It makes a certain amount to set the standard, as a matter of international relations, that gassing people in a third country is a clear casus belli, but that gassing your own people is not. You could call it the Rumsfeld Doctrine. Of course, using the prior gassing of one’s own country as a casus belli ten years later if you feel like it would also fit withing the terms of the Rumsfeld Doctrine.
That is one hell of a doctrine, that Rumsfeld Doctrine.
Yatsuno
@xenos:
It’s all about the known unknowns. Or unknown knowns. Or something.
Smedley Darlington Prunebanks (Mumphrey, et al.)
I’m hoping that the Republicans will be too petulant to give President Obama anything, and we can get this thing behind us. The way the Republicans have been behaving for the last five years, I feel fairly hopeful that this is what will happen. These Republicans are beyond belief. If Ted Cruz’s house were on fire with his children trapped inside and Barack Obama showed up with a ladder and tried to get them out, I think ol’ Ted would tackle the president and watch his children burn rather than let Obama do do anything to help.
Ted & Hellen
This is the funniest line you have ever written here, Betty.
Enhanced Voting Techniques
@Linda Featheringill:
Same here, from Obama POV a long debate lets Syria ether clarify or just blow over. Obama is a lawyer after all. The other bonus it will be hard for the Republicans to scream for austerity and war at the very same time.
Ted & Hellen
@Yatsuno:
Could you summarize for me all the ways in which PBO, as CIC, has worked to change this in the last five years?
Thanks.
Suffen ACE
Not budging one inch toward “we’re going to bomb” crowd until someone recommends boycotting Russian exports for a month in response for their support of the Assad government. Short of that, it does not matter. I’m hoping to set a precedent that when a power backs a regime that engages in these kinds of war crimes, that power’s economic elite suffers somehow. Hopefully Russia will respond in kind whenever we do the same thing, which is often. Noting will change until that elite who runs the security council suffers for the consequences of their foreign policies.
Ted & Hellen
@Villago Delenda Est:
Botwellian Bullshit.
PBO is CIC, not either one of his besties, Linds or John-John.
Make sure that weight is aimed where it would be most effective.
Villago Delenda Est
@Ted & Hellen:
Well, on Saturday, he invited Congress to perform a function given to it in the Constitution.
Villago Delenda Est
@Ted & Hellen:
You really do hate the ni*CLANG*, don’t you?
jeffreyw
@Yatsuno:
The known unknowns are “east, west, south and north” of the unknown knowns.
ThresherK
Nothing to add except perhaps the best ersatz 1960s TV adventure show theme ever.
Mike E
Anybody catch Alan Grayson on MSNBC this morning? He tore Thomas Roberts a new one over using the Chamberlain appeasement meme and asked him which kind of humanitarian bombing should be used here…good stuff. Demagoguery aside, I thot he done good today, pushing back against brainless media meme-ing.
Cacti
Betty apparently supports the “one free gas attack on a civilian population” precedent in applying the 1993 Convention on Chemical Weapons.
Good call.
Cacti
@Mike E:
Did he ask for donations?
IowaOldLady
The House will agree to bomb Syria only if Obamacare is “defunded” to pay for it. Two! Two! Two crazy moments in one!
danimal
I think it is wonderful that the debate is happening in Congress. First of all, we really need to have this debate, I certainly hope we wind up seeing the Syria mission scuttled, since the only people whole-heartedly endorsing the effort are Very Serious People who want to Do Something and always wind up putting us in Ultra-FUBAR condition.
Second, I’m glad to see this debate unfold because it distracts attention from the debt ceiling and budget crises. If the Syria mission is scuttled in the House (which I expect), the GOP is almost certainly going to go with the “Obama is weak” talking point and over-reach in their negotiations and demands. They will then have to retreat or face certain blame for economic catastrophe.
If Obama loses his ability to wage a stupid war, and wins in the budget/debt ceiling debate, I’ll be pleased.
danimal
@Yatsuno: We know where the chemical weapons are…somewhere to the east, west, north or south of Damascus.
Chyron HR
@Ted & Hellen:
How does something “Botwellian” differ from your garden-variety “Orwellian”?
Higgs Boson's Mate
@Belafon:
This, damn it! Obama’s bringing Congress in will mute, but not quell, Republican criticism. They’ll criticize whatever he does even if they have to make shit up.
Cacti
@Villago Delenda Est:
The only violence it supports is white on black.
Or adult on child of the sexual variety.
Howard Beale IV
Since the CW Genie has been freed and will probably not be put back in its bottle, perhaps its time to rub on the nuclear djinn’s lamp and tell the rest of the Syrian Quislings to go fuck themselves. After all, we’ve been there, done that.
Ironically, now would be a fun time for the NSA to publish all of the communications of the various Security Council members in regards to Syria-then the whole fucking world would know who’s in who’s pocket.
Unfortunately, the NSA is severely compromised that even if the absolute truth was told, no one would believe it,
Mike E
@Cacti: No. He did let Roberts have it for some shoddy interviewin’ tho. He’s not my cup of tea, mostly, but I like it when the 2×4 comes out. Good for him.
Howard Beale IV
@Cacti: Treaties only work for businesses. As far as politics go, they’re useful for ass-wiping and that’s about the extent of it.
Cacti
Remember, the annexation of the Sudetenland is a European problem.
Intervention would only harm innocent Jews and Czechs.
Betty Cracker
@Cacti: I think you’ve just discovered a great post-hoc justification for GWB’s invasion of Iraq. Forget that WMD bullshit. Now that declassified documents show that the US actively facilitated Iraq’s chemical weapons attack on Iran and concealed evidence that our then-pal Saddam Hussein was gassing the Iranians when they tried to get the UN to take action on it, we can just say we were retroactively enforcing the 1993 Convention on Chemical Weapons.
Mnemosyne
@IowaOldLady:
That’s what my bet is, too. I’ll be interested to see how the G20 goes since Russia is hosting it this time around.
SiubhanDuinne
@jeffreyw: Saw what you did there (I was actually trying to compose a parody but not getting very far).
Amir Khalid
@Chyron HR:
And who’s this Botwell person, anyway?
PIGL
@Yatsuno: nonsense. your military spending is your decision, not ours. Nobody is relying on the USA for defense against anyone, excepting your client states like Saudi Arabia and Israel. What you mean, I suppose, is that NATO countries should finance even larger militaries to be placed at the disposal of US foreign policy. Good luck with that.
Sloegin
Bombing will cause the delicate flower of democracy to bloom in Syria. Or maybe bombing will uncover some buried pirate treasure.
Both are good outcomes, but not realistic ones.
Mike E
@Amir Khalid: Bender Bending Rodriguez, natch.
Chyron HR
@Amir Khalid:
He did that 80s song, “Someboty’s Watching Me”.
Davis X. Machina
@Suffen ACE: You can be sued for civil damages if you text someone you know is driving, and it can be shown that you knew they were driving, and they injure someone in an accident as a result of the distraction… Seems like it should work for Russia…
Ted & Hellen
@Villago Delenda Est:
Why would you think of him as a nigger but be too milquetoast to use the word?
Own your hatred, asshole.
Chris
@Howard Beale IV:
I’m no economist. Are businesses actually better at abiding by treaties than national governments? That wasn’t my impression.
Shakezula
Dear sweet FSM, ban this sad waste of skin before it starts jerking off in the library again.
feebog
Not only are the bat-shit crazy obstructionists on the right in the House going to vote against a retaliatory strike, there are a number of liberal and moderate Dems as well. Jim McDermott and Grayson, who are far left and Tammy Duckworth, who I view as a moderate, have all come out against military action. Based on his comments 10 days ago at a Town Hall meeting, I would not be surprised to see my Congressman, Brad Sherman, vote no as well. I think this could be a very close vote in the House.
ranchandsyrup
@Chyron HR: Somebody’s watching me will be the Rando Paul/Glenzilla campaign theme music.
(Who’s watching me)
I don’t know anymore
Are the neighbors watching me
(Who’s watching)
Well, is the mailman watching me
(Tell me, who’s watching)
And I don’t feel safe anymore
Oh, what a mess
I wonder who’s watching me now
(Who)
The
IRSNSA????Mike E
Somebody said the N-word on the innernets! My hero.
Ted & Hellen
@Mike E:
You’re not encourage to laud Grayson for anything here. He makes POTUS look bad, and that’s all that matters.
Ted & Hellen
@Cacti:
That didn’t take long.
Cause PBO never asks for donations at his multi million dollar soirees among his Wall Street clients.
Oh that’s right…we’re not allowed to see those events.
Roger Moore
@Chris:
No. SATSQ.
Ted & Hellen
@Chyron HR:
Orwellian double speak and the thinking from which it extrudes itself, as used in service of the One’s political career.
? Martin
@Suffen ACE: That’s a good point, but it presents a different problem. We’re just now rolling back some of our Iran sanctions to provide support for the new President there. Adding them to Russia for that reason makes it difficult to explain our actions.
But I agree that it’d be better to at least have a non-military response before going to the military one. Not that’d I’d trust Congress to support that either.
srv
With McCain, Graham and Boehner onboard, this administration can only go up.
cleek
@srv:
it’s also a bit unsettling to see how hawkish John Kerry is.
? Martin
@IowaOldLady: That’s my expectation as well. Either that or there will be some sort of incomprehensible Benghazi demand that goes along with it.
Ted & Hellen
@cleek:
So you really are as naive as your desperate need of a pie filter implies?
Chyron HR
@Ted & Hellen:
Well, if there’s one thing I’m sure Orwell would approve of, it’s inventing nonsensical words like “botwellian”, “botsplainer”, or “botulist” with which to better denounce improper political views. So shine on, you crazy diamond.
jamick6000
It’s official guys, we have a new Hitler!!! http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2013/09/the-worlds-most-pernicious-anaology-strikes-again
AliceBlue
@IowaOldLady:
LOL!
Seriously, it wouldn’t surprise me.
Just Some Fuckhead, Thought Leader
America always puts her political differences aside to blow up brown people: It’s patriotic as hell and free too.
Howard Beale IV
@Chris: Yep. Because businesses have to go through the WTO instead of the UN for redress.
And in the case of Syria, since it isn’t a signatory to the Chemical Weapons Convention, they are within their right as a nation state to use them, as repulsive as it may be.
How will Obama solve the Syrian Kobayashi Maru?
Belafon
@PIGL: Where are you from? And specifically, how much does your country spend patrolling international waters?
Mike E
What’s with the prissy Miss Manners troll tellin’ everybody what they need to say, or do, or not? I suppose it’s all ok under the 1st Amendment, but sheesh. Quit oppressin’ me brah! And tuck in that shirt.
Mnemosyne
@Howard Beale IV:
So if Israel decided to drop a nuclear bomb on the West Bank, that would be A-OK because Israel never signed the anti-nuclear proliferation treaty?
raven
@Linda Featheringill: I don’t think so.
PIGL
@Cacti: Somebody is wrong on the internet.
Yatsuno
@PIGL: DUTY CALLS!
Oh and ask Europe, Japan, and South Korea about how us having a military there means they don’t have to spend as much on theirs.
Ted & Hellen
@Chyron HR:
I know! How dare people invent words for descriptive purposes and just to have fun for the hell of it.
It’s never been done before!
Suffen ACE
@Mnemosyne: Well, no. That would be an act of war. What Israel can do is develop them all it wants, apparently.
Chyron HR
@jamick6000:
So, Ted & Hellen, did you ever manage to come up with an explanation for why you were willing to vote for this sniveling sack of shit in 2004, but found Obama completely unacceptable just four years later?
(And by “explanation” I mean “excuse”. I think we all know the actual explanation.)
A Humble Lurker
@Ted & Hellen:
Well, one example is the cancelation a class of plane that was being built. The F-22 Airplane, to be specific. Which, according to Rachel Maddow, is something that never happens.
Also,
So Obama is a bigger problem than McCain and/or Graham, eh? Interesting. Especially considering their views on people who are gay, which you claim to be. Isn’t this like Union members supporting Reagan?
Yatsuno
@A Humble Lurker: Honey, gay Republicans are a dime a dozen. But you’re addressing someone who has no core beliefs. All it does is troll. Contrarian bullshitters gotta be contrarian bullshitters.
(Watch for nonsensical insults on my love life. Which it knows zero about.)
Ben Cisco
@Howard Beale IV: By changing the conditions of the test?
Hey, it worked last time.
Hawes
I like Jon Chait’s take:
For the purpose of deterring chemical-weapon attacks, the intent to strike matters nearly as much as the strike itself. Imagine that Congress votes not to authorize Obama’s plan. Then further imagine that Bashar al-Assad, emboldened, carries out another chemical attack. The media coverage would be far more intense. And members of Congress who voted no will have to answer for the carnage that will appear on television screens across the world. If the first vote lost by a relatively narrow margin, Obama would probably then call for a second vote and stand a good chance of winning.
cleek
for fuck’s sake, people, ignore the troll
lamh36
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.
FYI I understand the US history w/regards to use of chem weapons
Just Some Fuckhead, Thought Leader
@cleek: This ones on you. Your script should automatically hide anyone who speaks to someone on the troll list.
raven
@cleek: Thanks to you I do!
PIGL
@Belafon: a) Canada. b) no idea. c) naval patrols against pirates and other hazards of navigation do not require carrier task forces or the other accoutrements with which the US plans to defeat the Soviet Union in The Battle of the Atlantic Part 2: the Sinkening. If it was felt that more such patrols were needed, we could discuss how to organise and finance them. But that does not strike me as what is usually meant by the “free loader argumen” which descends from a desire for the rest of Nato to finance the American permanent occupation of Europe.
Corner Stone
God in heaven but I wish I were not watching SecState Powell testify right now.
patroclus
At first, I was pleased that Obama went to Congress because I thought there was a good chance that it would be defeated. Now, after watching virtually every media outlet go all in all weekend for a bombing campaign and watching Boehner, McCain, Graham and many more line up in support, I am reasonably certain that it will pass easily. Which is going to make it virtually impossible for Obama to decide not to do it after all. Which means that the bombing is going to happen. Which means more deaths and unintended consequences to boot.
So, now that it seems likely to happen, the best thing I can do is hope for the best. Hopefully, it will deter further chemical weapons attacks. Hopefully, it will degrade Syria’s military capability so that they can kill fewer people. Hopefully, al Qaeda won’t be emboldened and achieve effective power in Syria. Hopefully, there really is a pro-democratic moderate opposition in Syria that will benefit. Hopefully, there will be fewer refugees and a a wider war will not result. I’m not very confident about much of this.
cleek
@Just Some Fuckhead, Thought Leader:
i tried that once. twas too hard to get it working right.
Just Some Fuckhead, Thought Leader
@cleek: How about automatically adding to the troll list anyone who engages a troll? Then the regular script will filter them.
A Humble Lurker
@Yatsuno:
Oh, I know. It’s a game. Insulting it just gives it something to work with. (Laughably.) The real fun is finding something that it can’t and/or won’t respond to. And it’s a good warm-up for competent trolls.
Ted & Hellen
@cleek:
Yeah, dipshit, get a better filter!
Asshole.
Suffen ACE
@Hawes: What’s it gonna take for the sheeple to wake up and see the blood that’s on their hands from the actions dictator 8,000 miles away?
Belafon
@PIGL: I will say that I’m pretty sure Taiwan is enjoying our support. And no, I don’t separate the Navy from the rest of the spending for the reasons you described, because even though I was a sailor, I also wonder if 10 carriers are an effective use of resources.
ETA: And South Korea.
Belafon
@Just Some Fuckhead, Thought Leader: Because Skynet would just shut down the website again.
raven
@patroclus: The world is full of deaths and unintended consequences.
DaveinMaine
@patroclus: Nor should you be. It’s very much a “least bad choice” scenario
Personally, though, I think something has to be done. Whether that is military, economic or political is very much up for debate.
raven
Kerry just noted that when he was 27 he felt much like the Code Pinker that just went off. “That is why it is important that we are here”.
Howard Beale IV
@Mnemosyne: Nice try but that dog won’t hunt-try pink Himalayan salt next time.
MikeJ
@cleek: Here’s the update that does it. I don’t think Chuck would mind if you rolled someof his changes back into the main branch.
Litlebritdifrnt
@Yatsuno:
Like Universal Health Care. I know which one I’d rather have.
tybee
@Shakezula:
that’s not skin, it’s slime.
DaveinMaine
@Howard Beale IV: As members of the UN, Syria is bound under the Geneva Protocol. Which forbids the first-use of chemical or biological weapons. And in 1969 UN resolution 2603 declared the prohibition on use to be a recognized part of international law.
? Martin
@raven: It’s too easy to cram everyone into the Cheney/not-Cheney buckets. Just lazy, really.
raven
@? Martin: Everybody jumped up and down that they wanted a fucking vote. Now they are going to get it and it doesn’t mean diddly shit to them. I have now problem with pacifists, it that is the stance someone has, great. The rest, fuck em.
PIGL
@raven: As you have just contemptuously dismissed all possible grounds for objection, may we assume that you’d have none were we to send a few drones your way?
Watch the skies. For all the good it will do you.
Mandalay
@Howard Beale IV:
Exactly so. The Administration is at liberty to dream up whatever justifications it can muster in order to attack Syria, but making the legal argument that Syria is in violation of a convention it never signed ain’t gonna fly.
Although some folks here still close their eyes and swallow it.
patroclus
@raven: Indeed, but they aren’t all caused by U.S. bombs paid for with my tax dollars. I’m grudgingly coming around from opposition to the whole idea to reluctant acquiescence (as I suspect the Congress and the American people are). The Chemical Weapons convention should be enforced and it looks like we’re going to try to do it. I’m just not too confident that it’s going to cause events to occur in a manner that we want. In fact, I think it’s likely to cause things to happen which we don’t want. Nonetheless, because it seems likely, there doesn’t appear to be much point in opposing it and I guess I’m now “rallying around” to support my government. Despite my doubts as to the wisdom of all this.
Howard Beale IV
@DaveinMaine: So much for the UN and the Geneva Convention-especially when the US doesn’t recognize the Geneva Convention now, eh?
And since the US isn’t a member of the International Criminal Court in the Hague, the idea that the US is bound by anything is stretching credulity to the point of it being laughable.
patroclus
@DaveinMaine: Yes, something should be done. But I would prefer economic sanctions, refugee aid, arms to some rebels and diplomacy and discussions at the UN and a LOT more allies, which would take a lot more time to do and to organize. I don’t see exactly why the bombing has to occur so quickly. But my view isn’t being taken into account, so I guess we’re going to lob some cruises and tomahawks and hope for the best.
raven
@patroclus: Life is like that isn’t it?
CONGRATULATIONS!
@cleek: Fuck that. If Cole’s gonna let him in the living room, there to shit all over the furniture until it’s uniformly buried in a heap of feces, I’m going to help until the blog owner figures out his entire blog is covered in shit and decides to do something about it.
Rock on, Special Timmeh. Tell us how stupid and gullible we all are, all the time.
DaveinMaine
@Howard Beale IV: That’s not an argument. That’s evading the point. Which is that Syria IS bound by international law regarding the use of chemical weapons.
And the Geneva Protocol isn’t the same thing as the Geneva Conventions. And we are signatories to the Conventions last I checked.
raven
@patroclus: What are you talking about? Your view is what the damn vote is about.
Mandalay
@DaveinMaine:
Er….there is a very good reason that the Administration doesn’t want to go down that path….
Jebediah
@cleek:
What troll? I do see one commenter who apparently really, really loves pie…
CONGRATULATIONS!
Oh by the way, this is a catastrophic mistake that will plunge America into a pit of hellfire. There is no action that can be taken that would be preferable to no action at all, but here we are, the dick-waving has begun, and action will be taken. What an idiot’s mistake.
I’m trying to remember the last president in my lifetime that didn’t launch or perpetuate any military action. I’m thinking it’s Ford.
DaveinMaine
@patroclus: I agree with you. But the UN is blocked by Russia, which removed what would usually be the best method to intervene. The others take money and time and Republicans in Congress would never give Obama either. Which leaves missiles. Which is a shitty way to decide something – based on what a rabid pack of assholes in Congress will allow to happen.
Like I said, they’re all bad choices. Even doing nothing, despite what some people here believe, is a bad choice.
Cacti
@Betty Cracker:
Except in this case, there actually was a chemical attack on a civilian population.
But it’s the same as Iraq, because of reasons.
DaveinMaine
@Mandalay: So because Reagan was a shit over 20 years ago we can’t do anything now?
raven
@CONGRATULATIONS!: So run for fucking office.
catclub
I think that the senate will vote FOR some bombing, and once you get the executive plus one branch of congress, bombing will happen. Won’t matter if the House disagrees.
Glad to be wrong. – if both vote against.
cleek
@MikeJ:
ah… so that kills the entire comment if there’s a Reply link back to a badguy. i was trying to just pie-out the troll’s quoted text.
hmm.
Cacti
@DaveinMaine:
If that’s the case, then Germany has forfeited in perpetuity the right to weigh in on human rights violations.
cleek
@DaveinMaine:
so, as soon as the UN says we’re authorized to act, we should.
Howard Beale IV
@DaveinMaine:Sorry, but your dog still won’t hunt. Being a member of the UN allows you cover for all sorts of illegal shit, thanks to your bitches on the Security Council who will cover your ass when the shit hits the fan.
Try reality sometime.
Cacti
@CONGRATULATIONS!:
Another supporter of the “one free gas attack” precedent.
DaveinMaine
@cleek: Which you know will never happen thanks to Russia. So we should just stand around and do nothing as people get gassed to death. What a wonderful world.
catclub
@cleek: I still am in favor of troll comments only appearing to them. Then they will think everyone is ignoring them.
I have also heard of troll comments only being shown to themselves and other trolls, which is even more insidious.
cleek
@patroclus:
there is a procedure for that. we’re not following that procedure.
the UN has a procedure for authorizing force. we’re not following that procedure, either.
we’re acting (assuming we act, for some values of ‘we’), outside of the agreements we claim to be upholding.
BillinGlendaleCA
@CONGRATULATIONS!:
Nope. Mayaguez and the DMZ tree trimming incidence.
patroclus
@raven: Only indirectly. My view was expressed in the elections and my representatives are Obama, Biden, Durbin, Kirk and Mike Quigley. Obama and Biden are going to do it if authorized, Kirk will be a yes vote and Durbin and Quigley are undecided at present but will probably vote yes, but it’ll pass even if they vote no.
DaveinMaine
@Howard Beale IV: What reality is that? The one where I become as pathetic as you and argue that someone has the right to gas the citizens of his own country to death?
Cacti
@DaveinMaine:
The pacifist left also opposed Clinton’s intervention in Kosovo.
If you’ve ever watched Bowling for Columbine, Michael Moore tries to link the two.
tybee
@DaveinMaine:
so in order to punish someone for killing citizens, you’d like to kill more citizens.
excellent plan.
raven
@patroclus: Couldn’t be they know something you don’t now could it?
Belafon
I doubt anyone’s mind here is going to be changed. There’s absolutely no benefit in most people here changing their mind. We’re not locked in a room together, and it doesn’t cost us anything to yell past each other.
MikeJ
@catclub:
That really is the best way to do it, but has to be done on the server side. Cleek’s filter runs in the user’s browser.
Of course your solution means somebody on the server side has to agree that the troll is disruptive, and Cole has already said this particular troll won’t be banned.
DaveinMaine
@tybee: So you’d do nothing and let those citizens die anyway. But at least you could feel morally superior as they choked to death. Well done.
Cacti
@tybee:
Right you are.
The allies should immediately apologize to Germany, Japan, and Italy.
EthylEster
@Smedley Darlington Prunebanks (Mumphrey, et al.):
Me, too.
But it’s a hard call for them: hate on Obama OR bomb another country.
Plus I’m worried about the Dems. I have called all my congresscritters and encouraged them to just say NO!
FlipYrWhig
Maybe the way to figure out what a nation ought to do in a situation like this is to have a body of elected “representatives” who weigh different options for what to do in the people’s name! There can be some pros, and some cons, and by talking about it they can arrive at some sort of consensus that satisfies most of them, either to do that thing or not to do it! And the people they represent can express their wishes too! Because this crazy idea involves the things we have in common, we can use some Latin words and give it a fancy name. Maybe Davis X. Machina has a suggestion.
Jebediah
@cleek:
FWIW I am perfectly happy with the pie filter as it is.
Cacti
@DaveinMaine:
If they all just sat in a drum circle and sang Give Peace a Chance, that would surely touch Assad’s humanity.
Roger Moore
@CONGRATULATIONS!:
This seems like about the same argument that says we should let the Republicans shut down the Federal government indefinitely because then people will be sure to vote them out in the next election, or that we should let the health care system melt down so we can get single payer. Encouraging the system to collapse so things will get better when it’s rebuilt doesn’t work.
Gin & Tonic
Just for context, it took nearly four years of civil war in Bosnia before the UN intervened militarily, and brought that to settlement. It took about a year between generally-recognized Serbian atrocities in Kosovo before NATO intervened militarily, and also brought that to a conclusion. Hurrying is not nearly as important as doing this right (whatever “right” is.)
Belafon
@tybee: Ideally, I’d like no citizens to be killed. Since that ship has sailed, I’d like to make sure no one dies in the future. Ideally, that would involve not killing anyone not involved. Since we can’t achieve that ideal, the calculus is on short term cost versus future cost. The question is: If we don’t do this, will Assad, and other leaders in other countries, consider that it’s OK to use chemical weapons.
Mine won’t fit on a bumper sticker.
LanceThruster
Sorry, But Fuck Syria:
DaveinMaine
@Cacti: Didn’t you know we’re one global kumbayah circle away from peace in our time?
Ted & Hellen
Kerry has been entirely assimilated into the Matrix.
What a condescending douche bag.
Mandalay
@DaveinMaine:
The bale of straw is on it’s way to you. There’s enough for you to keep building strawmen for the rest of your life.
cleek
@DaveinMaine:
can you guarantee that any military action we undertake will not result in one more death than would have happened otherwise ?
that’s the bar you just set. if one, single, additional death happens because of US military action, it’s on you. you pushed for it; you own that death.
because i’m pretty sure that our ‘punitive’ military actions will cause more deaths, either directly or indirectly, than would happen otherwise. and i’m not willing to put those deaths on my karmic tab.
Ted & Hellen
@Cacti:
Not sure why you’re pretending to care about these non-African Americans who were allegedly gassed by the Syrian regime.
I mean, clearly, this is just a non-African American problem.
FlipYrWhig
@LanceThruster: how about tsunami victims? Fuck them too, we’ve got some municipalities running out of paper?
EthylEster
@DaveinMaine wrote:
I believe it condemns first-use against another country.
IOW gassing your own is not covered.
Screwed by the law-writers again!
PopeRatzo
@Villago Delenda Est:
If you’re going to use the word, use the word. Don’t play that shitty game where you get to throw out a racist term and then pretend it came out of someone else’s mouth.
Some pro-Obama dead-enders have revealed their homophobia, antisemitism and misogyny* in the past weeks over Greenwald and Laura Poitras, and you knew it was only a matter of time until the racism came out. But I at least thought it wouldn’t happen until a black whistleblower leaked something. Oh wait, I forgot what they said about Cornel West. Never mind.
DaveinMaine
@Mandalay: Hardly. From Howard’s own post:
Maybe you’d like that bale of straw back. I can also give you a hammer and tell you where to pound it.
FlipYrWhig
@cleek: ok, but we don’t think about other problems that way. We don’t say that since some innocent people get thrown in jail we should just give up trying to sort out the innocent ones from the guilty ones and not arrest anybody. Vaccines make some kids sick but we still think the tradeoff is worth it. The fact that a tradeoff exists doesn’t negate all similar decisions.
danielx
So, um, Grandpa McCain thinks there are still people in the world who are unaware that the US of A will bomb the shit out of whoever we please, whenever we please? We must demonstrate the national will, and all that?
Just Some Fuckhead, Thought Leader
@cleek: I think you are looking at this backwards. By default, everyone should be assumed to be a troll and pied automatically. Then we can circulate a list of community-approved commenters. Put them in the right folder, and voila, you only see what you’ve all agreed is acceptable. Over time, competing lists could circulate and different communities could expand and flourish in what for all intents and purposes is essentially a monoculture.
A Humble Lurker
@MikeJ:
FTFY.
DaveinMaine
@cleek: And you can guarantee inaction will result in FEWER deaths? By your same logic, if you sit there and more people die because you didn’t want to get involved, you own those deaths.
Anoniminous
U.N.’s Ban casts doubt on legality of U.S. plans to punish Syria:
So the US is working at violating an international accord it signed to bomb Syria for violation of an international accord it didn’t sign.
tybee
@DaveinMaine:
and you feel morally superior by slaughtering more citizens in order to punish someone for killing citizens.
i say again: that’s an excellent plan you have. how many citizens do you think you’ll need to kill to make you appreciate “victory” over the murderers of other citizens?
Cacti
@PopeRatzo:
How is brother Cornel these days?
Still speaking truth to power at round table discussions sponsored by Wells Fargo?
cleek
@Just Some Fuckhead, Thought Leader:
is your implication that people like Ted & Helen make this forum a better place?
DaveinMaine
@tybee: Probably fewer than the number of citizens that’ll die while you rage against the machine and pretend you’re saving people.
Cacti
@tybee:
It is never right to use force in response to force.
A sit in would have shut down Dachau.
NonyNony
@Just Some Fuckhead, Thought Leader:
The fact that you don’t know the difference between a “troll” like Ted and Hellen and someone who legitimately disagrees with someone else is why you’re an idiot JSF. Ted and Hellen is trying to get a rise out of people and says whatever he needs to say to piss people off – the obvious bit is in how he’s completely inconsistent about everything EXCEPT that Obama is wrong. However he needs to contort his words to poke people using the Obama is wrong stick will work. (It could also be that he’s a racist shithead, but I choose to give him the benefit of the doubt and just assume that he’s winding people up).
You, on the other hand, I often disagree with. You are not a troll though because it’s pretty clear that you have actual beliefs and one of them is “everyone else is an idiot”. This doesn’t make you a troll, it just makes you stupid.
Just Some Fuckhead, Thought Leader
@cleek: Of course not. My idea is premised on no one makes this forum a better place. Every single one of us is ruining it for someone else. Some, as you pointed out, are certainly better at it.
Betty Cracker
@Cacti: I guess you didn’t bother to read the linked article. There was a real chemical weapons attack on Iran too, perpetrated by our then-buddy Saddam Hussein, aided and abetted by the US, and when Iran tried to go to the UN to complain about it, the US helped cover up the incident. According to our own declassified documents. But yeah, we’re the moral compass of the universe and have holy writ to enforce world consensus on chemical weapons. It’s totally our job to do so.
Cacti
@Anoniminous:
And members of the Japanese Imperial Army were prosecuted for war crimes…
Even though the Empire of Japan never signed the Geneva Conventions (gasp).
Your understanding of international law is…laughable.
patroclus
@raven: They’ve had the classified briefings, but enough info is out there that is unclassifed for me to form a view of what is reasonably going on. The Syrian military used chemical weapons on 8/21 which killed thousands, including children, and the question is what to do about it – I would prefer diplomacy, sanctions, the procedural formalities of going to the UN, making a claim based on the Chemical Weapons convention itself, refugee aid, arms to some rebels and more allies. Before unilateral bombing. I don’t think bombing is going to work all that well. I don’t believe that bombing will deter the Syrian military from doing this again (especially if their survival is truly threatened) and I doubt if a limited campaign will seriously degrade their ability to do it again. But I’m hopeful that it will, because this cake appears to be baked.
cleek
@DaveinMaine:
A. if we blow up a bunch of stuff, but do nothing to take out Assad, Assad will continue to fight for his own survival. and we’ll have killed a bunch of people.
B. if we go for regime-change and take out Assad, history tells us that Syria will end up like Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya : prolonged civil war with al-Q throwing bombs from the sidelines.
C. if we go all-in regime-change plus nation building, we’ll get to the same place, but with a bunch of dead Americans, too.
D. doing nothing is the same as A, but we didn’t kill anyone.
B and C are not on the table.
DaveinMaine
@Betty Cracker: So because Reagan was an asshole we can’t do anything now? If we are bound and limited by what we did in the past then I guess inaction is all we can do.
Cacti
@Betty Cracker:
So the 1980s attack on Iran was a violation of the 1993 Convention on Chemical Weapons.
Interesting method of counting you have there.
tybee
@Cacti:
the allies would have not risked a single soldier over the jews if it weren’t for the invasions of other countries.
but you do build excellent cities and citizens out of straw. keep it up while you figure out who you’re going to bomb and how many more you’ll kill to assuage your “moral” senses.
Mandalay
@DaveinMaine:
Nope – you’re the one who needs straw to make an argument.
HB4 was not supporting or condoning the use of chemical weapons in Syria in any way, and even called them “repulsive”. But he was correctly pointing out that the legal arguments you are pushing have more holes than a sieve. If you are a lawyer in real life then you really need to look for another line of work.
Rob in CT
Here we are in 2013, and people (including John Kerry, SecState) is breaking out the Hitler analogies.
What is this, a time warp?
Anyway, those analogies were stupid in 2002-2003 and they’re even more stupid now. Anyone using them can fuck right the hell off.
Cacti
@DaveinMaine:
Then I guess Reagan was right for not condemning apartheid.
It would have been totes hypocritical considering our history of Jim Crow and slavery.
I never knew you were a Reagan fan, Betty.
DaveinMaine
@cleek: Your assumption on D is that we didn’t kill anyone. But if we do nothing and more people die, if thousands more or tens of thousands more are gassed…then yes, we DID kill those people. Unless you can show me that they would have died regardless of whether we intervened or not.
tybee
@DaveinMaine:
and you are killing millions in africa by not stopping all the atrocities committed there.
how can you sleep at night knowing you’re a murderer of women and children?
ETA: and if we strike syria, upset the balance of power, assad figures he’s got nothing to lose and gasses more to keep from having him and his familiy executed by the rebels, then YOU own those deaths. do i understand your reasoning yet?
DaveinMaine
@Mandalay: when someone says that Syria is “within their right as a nation state to use them” then yes, that is supporting their right to use them. Sorry if that makes you uncomfortable.
Cacti
@tybee:
It’s never right to use force to resist force.
We just have to accept that civilians are going to be gassed, and that there’s nothing to be done about it.
Nanking was unfortunate, but could have been halted by some signs and catchy slogans.
MikeJ
@Cacti: Is the attack in question the time when the Iraqis used chemical weapons while attacking uphill? That was yet another time Saddam gassed his own people, albeit unintentionally.
Trollhattan
Since I have no fracking idea what’s correct here, I’ve devised a quiz for the better-informed.
1. U.S. decides to blow up a bunch of things in Syria:
a. Assad is less likely to gas his people again.
b. Assad is more likely to gas his people again.
c. Assad continues with his plans unchanged.
2. U.S. decides not to blow up a bunch of things in Syria:
a. Assad is less likely to gas his people again.
b. Assad is more likely to gas his people again.
c. Assad continues with his plans unchanged.
3. U.S. decides to blow up a bunch of things in Syria
a. Other nations are less likely to gas their own or other people.
b. Other nations are more likely to gas their own or other people.
c. Other nations continue with their current plans unchanged.
4. U.S. decides not to blow up a bunch of things in Syria
a. Other nations are less likely to gas their own or other people.
b. Other nations are more likely to gas their own or other people.
c. Other nations continue with their current plans unchanged.
Am not sure I buy the whole “our credibility is at stake” meme because I have a hunch the answer to 1-4 is “c.”
DaveinMaine
@tybee: I’ve advocated for the US to get involved more in Africa. What I haven’t done is actively advocated to ignore people getting gassed to death because the MIC makes me haz a sad.
Shakezula
@Belafon: This is an interesting shouting match because both sides say they care (for a given value of care) about the Syrians.
LanceThruster
@FlipYrWhig:
I’m for no drones strikes on tsunami victims as well (at least until we can afford paper).
Cacti
@tybee:
Ruh-roh…the old forked tongue of the pacifist left reveals itself.
Intervention is not justified…unless it’s in Africa.
But Libya was in Africa and they opposed that one too.
Intellectual consistency. Does our emos has it?
Anoniminous
Further: Mission All-But-Impossible: Destroying Syria’s Chemical Weapons from the Air:
The article is well worth a read. It contains the fascinating fact Syria is estimated to have “hundreds of tons of chemical weapons.”
Rob in CT
@cleek:
Quick & dirty, but that’s basically it.
Belafon
@DaveinMaine: You’re really not going to convince anyone else.
To me, this inaction feels a bit like people who think we should abolish the EPA. No one has used chemical weapons in such a long time that we don’t feel that we have to do anything about it. I hope they are right.
It’s a tough choice.
tybee
@Cacti:
your straw is old and moldy and it suits your argument just fine.
lamh36
@Cacti: busy calling Al Sharpton an Uncle Tom.
Fuck Cornel West. He’s a jealous ass who along with Tavis Smiley are pissed that they are no longer allowed access to power.
Cornel West was bitching about the 1st inaugural tickets and basically calling Melissa Harris Perry, a house negro.
Tavis crying over poor Black folk and advancing the Black agenda, but while he was busy putting Wells Fargo dirty money in his pocket while getting more of us Black folks to sign up and become victims of Wells Fargo.
From this sista to Brother West and Brother Tavis…fuck em both with a rusty pitchfork!
Betty Cracker
@Cacti: Hence the use of the term “post hoc.” You could look it up.
Mandalay
@DaveinMaine:
I didn’t say that at all.
I am saying the Administration can’t use any of the legal arguments you are pushing because they are a load of shit dreamed up by an armchair warrior who thinks he understands international law because he spent ten minutes on google.
Cacti
@tybee:
Please reconcile talking out of both side of your mouth.
“How can justify intervention in Syria when nothing’s being done in Africa?”
So you support intervention in Africa then, or you just bring it up as a handy talking point?
DaveinMaine
@Belafon: I know I won’t.
And I agree…it’s a very difficult choice and we are in an area that leaves no “Hey, that’s a perfect plan!” choices.
tybee
@Cacti:
you and david seem to think that we MUST DO SOMETHING or we’ll have all those deaths on our heads, except of course the ones we kill during that “SOMETHING” that we must do.
africa has issues with atrocities, too. those don’t count? why are those any less deserving of your “SOMETHING” ?
you’re gonna need a LOT more straw to buttress your “logic”.
SiubhanDuinne
@Hawes: It even sounds as though the British House of Commons may be willing to have another vote.
DaveinMaine
@Mandalay: That’s a lot of assumption there, buddy. But hey, go ahead and stick your head back in the sand and pretend that doing nothing will save everyone’s life. Keep riding that moral high horse right into the ground.
Comrade Dread
@Trollhattan:
You are correct.
The US isn’t going to hit chemical weapons stockpiles out of fear of releasing the toxins. So we’re probably going to bomb a few military buildings, maybe an airfield or runway, a piece of artillery or two, kill some soldiers and maybe a few civilians in the blast zone, and then presumably we’re going to say “message received, now you boys go back to killin’ each other with UN approved weapons like civilized folks…” and then promptly go back to ignoring Syria, while Assad and the rebels resume their war and Hezbollah decides whether or not its going to start committing terrorist acts against US interests elsewhere.
tybee
@Cacti:
i’m merely pointing out the gaping holes in your “logic” and delineating your wish to kill more in syria.
please explain precisely where you will bomb and show us your evidence that bombing will do anything other than that “SOMETHING” you insist must be done. and i note that you nor david have given me a number of more dead citizens that will make you feel like you have found a victory in that pile of horseshit you two are peddling.
Mnemosyne
@Suffen ACE:
How would it be an act of war for Israel to nuke the West Bank? Technically, it’s still part of Israel though they have some small amount of autonomy. It’s the same circumstances: Israel would be putting down (what they see as) a rebellion, so they should be allowed to use a nuke since they never promised not to use nukes, just like Assad never promised not to use chemical weapons.
Just Some Fuckhead, Thought Leader
@NonyNony: I’m not suggesting for a minute T&H isn’t the worst troll ever, the most hideous pseudonymous commenter to disgrace the site since it’s inception. I completely agree with this. It’s one of the reasons I am loathe to engage him. Where on earth did I suggest otherwise? Are you fucking retarded?
Before T&H, it was someone else. Before someone else, it was someone else. It was Brick Oven Bill or Darrell. For awhile it was me, if you say so. It will always be someone new or different – better to pre-ban everyone for the simple reason that it isn’t enough to shut the troll up, instead you need to figure out how to shut the responders up. Every fucking thread, it’s the same 6 to 12 Balloon Juice retards doing noble battle against the trolls. At some point, those people have to be held responsible also.
Cacti
@Betty Cracker:
So your position is more or less…
Hussein got away with a chemical attack in the 1980s, ergo it’s wrong to punish Assad for a chemical attack in 2013.
What’s an acceptable number of gas attacks then? Or should we base it on body count?
tybee
@DaveinMaine:
show us that bombing will fix anything.
Mnemosyne
@Howard Beale IV:
In other words, it’s not the same because shut up, that’s why.
Good answer.
Cacti
@tybee:
So, just talking out your ass then.
You care no more for dead Africans than you do for dead Syrians. It’s all just an exercise in philosophical wankery for you.
Howard Beale IV
@DaveinMaine: Civil Wars have always been messy affairs, and this one in Syria is no different.
DaveinMaine
@tybee: And where’s the evidence your doing nothing is a better choice? Where’s your evidence that, if we just hold back and be nice and do nothing that Assad will come to Allah and stop using chemical weapons?
How many people have to get gassed to make you feel morally superior?
DaveinMaine
@tybee: Show us doing nothing will do the same.
cleek
@DaveinMaine:
right. “do nothing” implies a whole bunch of effects that we didn’t cause.
ignoring how cause and effect work for the sake of argument… in this case “we” = everyone in the world except Assad’s forces. so, why does the US have to be the country to break international laws, treaties, and charters in the name of enforcing those very same laws treaties and charters? who made us the enforcer?
is Assad going to stop fighting for his position if we blow up his airport? no? then he’ll probably keep on doing what he’s been doing after we’re done waving our cock around.
tybee
@Cacti:
and so you admit you got nothing. but i already knew that. thanks for showing us. again.
cleek
@Shakezula:
that’s what happens when all options are terrible.
tybee
@DaveinMaine:
you claim bombing won’t kill any innocent civilians?
explain your plan to cacti. he’s confused. again.
Mnemosyne
Still waiting for someone to explain why it’s okay for Syria to use chemical weapons inside their borders on their own citizens because they didn’t sign a treaty saying they wouldn’t, but it would be bad for Israel to use nuclear weapons inside their borders on their own citizens even though they didn’t sign a treaty saying they wouldn’t.
Double standard much?
FlipYrWhig
@Comrade Dread: that’s probably true. I might still say it’d be worth doing, though, because it would address the “crimes against humanity” aspect of poison gas while respecting that civil wars are civil matters. That’s my impression of where Obama is on this too: find a way to respond to the use of a banned weapon without bogging down in an intractable many-sided war.
Frankly, if the UN won’t act, or some regional concert of powers — both of which would be preferable than the US going alone — I’d personally rather have a US military whose primary goal would henceforth be to enforce human rights and human dignity than one whose goal is to defend oil pipelines and coltan deposits. The idea of “national interests” leads to some terrible conclusions most liberals and lefties would abhor as justifications for military involvement.
Anoniminous
@Comrade Dread:
Tomahawks can attrite the Syrian Command-and-Control system and not much else. Since intelligence reports state chemical weapons are already dispersed in the field the result would be a lessening of control of weapon use, basically putting the command decision to use the weapons into the hands of the least stable relevant army commanders.
Comrade Dread
@Mnemosyne:
That isn’t quite true legally. Israel is occupying the territory, it has not annexed it and legally could not do so.
Fallout tends not to respect national borders, mate. And it drifts a lot further and lasts a lot longer than sarin. The two things are not equivalent.
Cacti
@DaveinMaine:
The humanizing influence of China, Russia, and Iran will have a mollifying effect on Assad.
Just ask Ed Snowden. Vladimir Putin’s actually a great guy.
DaveinMaine
@tybee: I never said that. What I did say is show me how your principled stand to do nothing actually stops Assad from using chemical weapons again. Cause the way I see it is that doing SOMETHING actually has a greater than zero chance of working. Doing NOTHING … well, at least you can post about how you stopped the MIC.
Fair Economist
Syria may not have signed the 1993 treaty, but it *did* sign, in 1968 the Geneva protocol forbidding “asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases, and of all analogous liquids, materials or devices”. Of course, the US going to war over violations of the Geneva protocols could open quite a large can of worms…
Mandalay
@DaveinMaine:
I’ve posted nothing for or against taking action, beyond pointing out that the legal arguments you keep advancing are baseless drivel.
The Administration should specifically not be using any legal arguments to justify intervention in Syria because there are none, but there are other less contentious and more persuasive arguments to advance.
But don’t believe me. From post #159, the UNSG says:
Cacti
@DaveinMaine:
Are you kidding?
Once Assad gets the green light from the international community for more gas attacks, the emo progs will the ones years later lamenting “why was nothing done?” a la Rwanda.
Mnemosyne
@Comrade Dread:
Neither does mustard gas, a major mutagen and carcinogen, but everyone here seems A-OK with letting Assad continue to use it since he never signed a treaty saying he wouldn’t.
Sarin can get into the drinking water and last a couple of weeks (it only lasts a couple of hours in the air). So if people drink sarin-laced water or eat food contaminated by it and get sick, oh well, they should have known better, amirite?
Ted & Hellen
@Just Some Fuckhead, Thought Leader:
You like me! You really, really like me!
Comrade Dread
But it really doesn’t. It’s not a punishment of Assad. It’s not a punishment of the officers who fired the rockets. A response that addressed the ‘crimes against humanity’ would be one in which the guilty parties were punished after being dragged before the Hague and legally convicted of mass murder. Of course, doing that would require a full scale commitment to war, which would mean the third major war in the Middle East in 11 years and another trillion dollars or two sent overseas, throwing another nation into even more chaos, probably setting up another Islamist state, and generally fucking things up even more, along with a bunch of civilian deaths that we would be responsible for.
I think the best thing to do in this case would be to present a case to the Hague against Assad, open our doors to Syrian refugees, and increase aid to the refugee camps that already exist so they have some measure of security and aren’t worried about the basic necessities.
tybee
@DaveinMaine:
and you seem to be sure that bombing will solve everything.
please explain, in detail, how bombing syria will solve the issues within that country and what sort of body count you’ll feel is high enough to sooth your outraged morals as you kill innocents to protest killing innocents.
perhaps cacti can loan you some of his straw. he has an abundance.
Roger Moore
@DaveinMaine:
The person arguing for action is always the one who has to prove their point, not the one arguing for inaction. We know that bombing Syria will create an evil, because that’s what bombing things does; it destroys things and kills people. To justify it, we need evidence that it will accomplish something that more than outweighs that evil.
DaveinMaine
@Mandalay: Actually, all I pointed out is that Syria actually is bound by certain international standards when it comes to chemical weapons. I didn’t advance a legal argument saying that we can get involved because of statute XYZ.
I said we should do something because it’s the fucking right thing to do. Because ignoring chemical weapons use is dumb as shit and pretending that it’ll all just go away if we ignore it is ridiculous.
Cacti
@Mandalay:
The principals of NATO should then be arrested and sent to the Hague, for their actions toward kindly old Slobodan Milosevic. It didn’t have the blessing of the UN Security Council, after all.
DaveinMaine
@Roger Moore: Assad has already used chemical weapons. You need to show that inaction will actually prevent him from using them again.
DaveinMaine
@tybee: How many people have to be gassed to make your moral ground more firm?
Comrade Dread
@Mnemosyne: Radiation lasts much, much longer than a few weeks.
I’ve said what I think should be done. We should provide as much humanitarian aid as required and open our doors to refugees providing transportation as needed. Assad and his officers responsible should be brought up on charges before the Hague and subject to arrest in any country they set foot.
I am not prepared to blunder into another war that conceivably could make things worse based on our own track record at interventions in the Middle East.
Mandalay
@Fair Economist:
Exactly so. The Administration needs to avoid making any legal arguments, and Hagel really needs to STFU with the his claim that chemical weapons in Syria “is a serious threat to America’s national security interests”. He makes himself and America look stupid with that garbage.
Anoniminous
@Mnemosyne:
My position is the only way to stop the Syrian government using their chemical weapons arsenal is invading and taking physical possession. And not the ~77,000 in the article I linked to above. It will take hundreds of thousands of troops to secure the weapons once they have been captured or the weapons dumps will open to looting – as happened in Iraq and Libya.
Just Some Fuckhead, Thought Leader
We should bomb Syria to let the folks locked up indefinitely and tortured in Gitmo that we will not tolerate human rights abuses.
If we let Syria get away with this, what’s to stop us from doing it again?
Betty Cracker
@Cacti: No, that’s not my point at all. You, John McCain and Lindsey Graham (hey, if you can accuse me of being a “Reagan fan,” I can lump you in with those pricks; you don’t mind, right?) keep implying that a failure to punish Assad for using chemical weapons use will bring about Holocaust II, when that’s demonstrably nonsense.
Mnemosyne
@Comrade Dread:
Then why bother to ban chemical weapons? All they do is cause cancer and birth defects years later in the survivors, which isn’t as bad as fallout. And the people killed by them would be just as dead if conventional weapons were used. So why have some “rule” against using them?
Cacti
@Betty Cracker:
So, it’s your position that doing nothing will not create a future precedent on the use of chemical weapons, that’s tantamount to one free gas attack?
Jockey Full of Malbec
@Suffen ACE:
Russia’s basically an oil company with nukes at this point.
Outside of a few curiosities like vodka and underage prostitutes, Russia’s chief exports are oil, natural gas and military hardware.
Perhaps Europe will be kind enough to take one for the team, and volunteer to freeze this winter.
Mnemosyne
@Anoniminous:
Given that Assad has already responded to international pressure by letting UN inspectors in after the sarin attack, I think there’s an opportunity to convince him to turn his stocks over to the UN, but that’s not going to happen without massive pressure and threats. Saying, “Oh, pretty please, could you maybe consider letting the UN take charge of those?” ain’t gonna cut it.
Chris
@Comrade Dread:
Although, Israel has never actually declared its borders and continues to push for a bigger peace of the pie (while its settlers continue to work to make that a reality). The legal limbo in which the West Bank exists as far as Israel is concerned, where it’s never clear whether they consider it Israeli soil (which would imply that all the people living there are citizens with full civil and voting rights) or a foreign country under occupation (which comes with its own set of obligations re the local people) is what lets them get away with treating the Palestinian public however they want.
As far as international law is concerned, the West Bank is a separate entity, so Israel nuking or gassing the West Bank would indeed be different from what Syria just did – in theory. In practice, even with international law it’s not entirely clear what’s considered the West Bank anymore, and international law means very little on the ground in any case.
Cacti
@Just Some Fuckhead, Thought Leader:
There are prisoners in Gitmo, ergo chemical attacks on civilians are okay.
Call it the Just Some Fuckhead Doctrine.
Howard Beale IV
@Mnemosyne: Vs Strontium-90 with a 70-year half-life that’s bio-migrates with calcium…
Or Cobalt-60 with a gamma-emitting half-life of 5500+ years…
Yeah, real big similarities there with chemical weapons. Chemical Weapon remediation is childs play compared to radiation remediation (cf: Chernobyl)
Give up while you’re behind.
Jockey Full of Malbec
@Roger Moore:
Fallacy, grasshopper.
Choosing to ‘do nothing’ is, in and of itself, a choice.
FlipYrWhig
@Comrade Dread: I’d be fine with your course of action. I didn’t mean to suggest that a military response would be the response to end all responses, but it’s a _kind_ of response. Keeping the response proportionate strikes me as the sort of thing people like John Kerry and Barack Obama are pretty good at, and I don’t think the slippery slope to full-on war is likely to be too greasy to control. IMHO something small will happen, everyone will say, “what the fuck was the point of that?,” Republicans will bark that it was too wussy, Democrats will bark that it was too macho, and it’ll leave the headlines just like the North Korean nuke story did.
Chris
@Jockey Full of Malbec:
Apparently, they want to be the next Saudi Arabia.
catclub
@Mnemosyne: “Given that Assad has already responded to international pressure …”
I am in favor of blustering along threatening to attack, and then not doing it, as long as no more gas attacks come.
Mandalay
@DaveinMaine:
But that IS a legal argument you are advancing: “that Syria actually is bound by certain international standards”.
If the Adminsitration wants to win hearts and minds it should stay away from legal arguments, and go full blown Sally Struthers to make its case.
Betty Cracker
@Cacti: I’m saying that fucking horse is already out of the barn. And I’m not saying “do nothing” either — I’m just saying don’t drop bombs and get involved in a civil war with assholes on both sides.
tybee
@DaveinMaine:
where is your proof that assad WILL DEFINITELY GAS MORE CIVILIANS?
and you still cannot articulate your master bombing plan to solve everything. why not?
if the rebels were “nice folk”, i’d say take assad out. now. regime change would certainly put an end to him and his plans. but i’m at least vaguely aware of what groups the rebels consist and am a bit leery of what will happen to the shia and christians and other non sunni citizens when/if the sunni fundamentalists take over.
show me how bombing solves those issues. i await your plan. as does the world.
FlipYrWhig
@Mandalay: “America’s national security interests” in a sentence like that from a SecDef almost certainly means “Israel.”
Cacti
@Betty Cracker:
So, what then? Care packages for the attack victims?
Roger Moore
@DaveinMaine:
No. The people who are counseling action need to show that it decreases his chances of using using them again, because if we bomb him and it doesn’t work as a deterrent, then we’re worse off than if we had done nothing. You seem to be assuming that the bombing will work, and we’re demanding that you justify that assumption. If you can’t, then the whole argument for bombing is nonsense.
FlipYrWhig
@Betty Cracker: I don’t think it’s that hard to imagine dropping bombs and also _not_ getting more deeply involved in a war. In fact ISTM that that’s the entire objective of the Obama administration and consistent with all their public statements.
LanceThruster
When can we start bombing Fukushima for irradiating the left coast?
tybee
@catclub:
that’s pretty much where i am, at this point.
Comrade Dread
There are men and women who bear the horrific scars of conventional weapons: missing limbs, disfigurement, burns, brain damage, blindness. They will bear these for the rest of their lives. Some of them lie in the ground for decades waiting for a kid to step on them while playing soccer. Some of them sit around emitting low level radiation that can cause birth defects as well. Conventional weapons are not super safe happy fun time weapons. So yeah, I’m not seeing why the world decided to draw the line there and consider everything else to be ‘acceptable’ forms of causing human carnage and misery.
Nuclear weapons are not the same. They’re destructive potential is far greater and they have a far greater impact on the environment and disperse radioactive fallout over a far wider area.
Cacti
@LanceThruster:
Pffft.
We’ve still got drum circlers who tsk tsk the United States for dropping Little Boy and Fat Man on the rapists of Nanking.
chopper
@Cacti:
actually, isn’t it around a dozen at this point?
FlipYrWhig
@Roger Moore: here’s a bad but perhaps relevant analogy. If you catch a drunk driver, you can take away his license. You can’t stop him from drinking again, you can’t stop him from driving again, but you can make it even more illegal when he does it the next time. Something similar seems to be the goal here: make it harder for him to do the same kind of harm he’s done before.
Betty Cracker
@FlipYrWhig: Not so sure that’s accurate, from what I’ve read today (including the article I linked above). McCain and Graham were brought on board partially by assurances that the least al Qaeda-like faction of the Assad opposition would be “upgraded” with US weapons and training, etc. Obama made some much more vague noises about supporting the rebels before, which could be interpreted as “we’ll provide Army surplus blankies.” I was kinda hoping he would stick with that position.
feebog
So here is an interesting hypothetical for those absolutely opposed to any type of military strike against Syria: let’s assume that Congress does not give POB authorization to retaliate. And further, let’s assume that POB says OK, I will abide by the will of the people as expressed by Congress. And then let’s assume that Assad, total fucking madman that he is, unleashes another chemical weapons attack, killing not 1400 this time, but say 20K civilians. What should our response be at that point?
I’m not saying I’m in favor of a retaliatory strike at this point, because I don’t know if it really would restrain Assad. But I would not be surprised to see this asshole use chemical weapons again, and on a larger scale, if there is no action taken. I’m glad POB has deferred to Congress on this, our elected representatives need to debate this issue and then vote yea or nay. Fucking representative democracy, how does it work?
PopeRatzo
@Cacti:
It’s probably better that you never look at a list of the sponsors of Rachel Maddow or Chris Hayes or anyone at MSNBC.
Actually, maybe you should. It might have a clarifying effect if you picked your favorite journalist or member of the media and look at who sponsors the platform. You might not be so quick to try to mau mau Cornel West for criticizing Obama (who by the way is sponsored himself by some pretty reprehensible folks).
FlipYrWhig
@Comrade Dread: well, beating someone to a pulp for being gay or black doesn’t leave them more injured than beating someone to a pulp for touching your car, but we as a society have decided that it’s morally/ethically worse to do the first than the second. Similarly, the use of some weapons can be considered more of a depraved act than the use of others.
chopper
@tybee:
that’s a dumb request. you can’t ‘prove’ that someone will definitely do something in the future.
i will, however, point out that this isn’t his first use of gas. his regime has been gassing people for awhile now, so i have no reason to believe he’s just going to up and stop on his own.
Howard Beale IV
@Cacti: Well, all the Cs¹³⁷ ain’t going to go away by itself…
LanceThruster
@Cacti:
I personally handed this to Gen. Paul Tibbets at a reunion in LA of the crew of the Enola Gay.
Mandalay
@FlipYrWhig:
Actually not, because the full quote was
.
But of course Hagel couldn’t just say “it is a serious threat to national security interests of our closest allies”. That wouldn’t look too good either.
But you are right…he was essentially saying that the situation was a threat to Israel. The speechwriters need to work on Hagel’s argument.
Chyron HR
@PopeRatzo:
Has the great Cornell West weighed in on the True Progressive party line that it’s not racist to call a black man the n-word if you preface it with “inner” and pretend that’s an expression that has ever been used by anyone in human history?
tybee
@chopper: “that’s a dumb request. you can’t ‘prove’ that someone will definitely do something in the future.”
exactly.
Anoniminous
@Mnemosyne:
Launching Tomahawks isn’t going to cut it either.
Do Nothing XOR Launching Tomahawks is a false dichotomy. There’s several avenues to get the Syrians to stop gassing their own population. Most of which require Russia and Iran getting involved and, probably, an agreement from the US and others to stop arming non-government fighters in Syria.
A basic premise in the strategy for dealing with WMDs is never, ever, put a government with WMDs into a corner where they either have to use their weapons or unconditionally surrender. Especially a government that has already demonstrated willingness to use them. Ratcheting up their perceived threat level only makes it more likely they will continue to use them; ratchet it up enough and they will start to mass-deploy the weapons.
FlipYrWhig
@Betty Cracker: well, I suppose I’d prefer not to do that, because that’s more like “arming the mujahideen” than “punishing a breach of the law of war.” But, you know, the point of deliberative democracy is to deliberate, so what the Congress wants to do when it comes to a war is kind of what the Constitution says the nation ought to do. Let them hash it out. Speaking of precedents, that too is to me an important precedent: having the Congress establish the way the nation conducts warfare.
fuckwit
LOLguffaw. Fucking awesome.
NobodySpecial
Wonder which commenters were using this same kind of logic back in 2002 to justify military intervention in Iraq.
FlipYrWhig
@NobodySpecial: I think the guy who created the blog was.
Roger Moore
@feebog:
Here’s a counter-hypothetical: what happens if we launch a retaliatory strike and it does almost no real damage? He might well decide that we’ve done our worst and it’s not that bad, so there’s no real consequence to continuing the attacks. It’s sort of the flip-side of the argument that we have to do something to maintain our credibility: if we do something that’s ineffectual, it will damage our credibility more than doing nothing would.
AxelFoley
@Ben Cisco:
Like Kirk did with the Kobayashi Maru?
Howard Beale IV
@Roger Moore: Careful with counterfacturals, lest you turn into another Niall Ferguson….
ruemara
@Just Some Fuckhead, Thought Leader: I think you do a disservice to Brick Oven B i l l. Whether satire or real, he was a notable bit of a freak with less overall hostility to all life that was not him.
Look, none of you are in Congress, so your points are moot. And if you oppose a strike, like a sensible person interested in outcomes does, you better contact your Congressperson. That being said, most are still not even in DC. I oppose the strike, the potential for another war and I oppose Assad, but I fear we won’t get anything good out of this, no matter what we do.
fuckwit
@LanceThruster: Not a danger, but stll fucked up. http://news.discovery.com/earth/oceans/fukushima-radioactive-plume-reach-us-130901.htm
Yatsuno
Smelling TBogg unit here!
Tone in DC
@Smedley Darlington Prunebanks (Mumphrey, et al.):
I applaud the use of such examples of semi-hyperbole in comments. Thing is, dealing with said G00pers… it’s probably not hyperbole.
Betty Cracker
@ruemara:
Good point. I’ve done so, not that I imagine it’ll amount to more than a fart in a whirlwind, but it’s important to do what we can.
BillinGlendaleCA
@Yatsuno: Maybe when Rand of Paul starts his questions we can get there. HERE’S RAND!!!
Villago Delenda Est
@Cacti:
The problem here is we don’t know who perpetrated the sarin attack. There is serious doubt that Assad ordered it, because it makes no sense for him to have done so. Yes, I know he’s “evil” and all, but he’s not a fucking Bond villain. He doesn’t kill for shits and grins, unlike, say, Dick Cheney.
eemom
@Yatsuno:
And nary a “Greenwald” to be seen…..oops.
Just Some Fuckhead, Thought Leader
@Villago Delenda Est:
ergo we can’t bomb Assad because Cheney is evil.
fuckwit
@Comrade Dread: Look, nuclear weapons are for the most part just REALLY BIG conventional weapons. Being able to take out a whole city with one bomb is fucking scary, but it’s the scale of the scope of the destruction. The radiation/fallout aspect of them is much more like chemical weapons: long-term effect long after the war is over, poisoning the land, causing birth defects, etc. So that’s a scale in time, as well as in the immediate death toll, and also radiation is indiscriminate like chemical weapons. So you have a tool by which to measure the fucked-up-ness of a weapon: how much destruction it does immediately, how much afterwards, for how long afterwards, and how widely and indiscriminately. I’d have to say on those 3 scales nukes are absolutely the worst. Chemical weapons are much less worse on two of the scales and not really anywhere near on one. (Mines are bad on two of those scales too: indiscriminate and long lasting.) However, making a nuke is not easy. The danger of chemical weapons though, is in how easy they are to make. Someone can cook them up in your kitchen along with their pressure cooker shrapnel bomb. That to me is what makes them scary, and a very easy tool for terrorists (who really don’t care about precise killing, just wreaking havoc) to add to their arsenal. And I have to say I think that’s why the world’s governments chemical weapons them beyond the pale: because people other than them can get their hands on them and use them much more easily, and because their destructive power is more long lasting and indiscriminate than the kinds of conventional weapons a terrorist could get a hold of.
patroclus
@BillinGlendaleCA: After watching Rand Paul, I’m leaning towards supporting this wholeheartedly:-) What a douche! He does the anti-bombing opposition no favors whatsoever.
feebog
@ Roger Moore:
Your counter-hypothetical is exactly what I’m afraid of. OTH, a strike that put some hurt on his military capabilities might very well dissuade him from further use. It would be especially helpful if the message following the strike was next time the bomb will be aimed at you Assad. Perhaps you can tell that I am really conflicted on this. I really do see the use of chemical weapons as crossing a line. I know, dead is dead, but there is a reason that the international community almost uniformly bans the use of chemical weapons. Moreover, in this case the CWs deliberately targeted civilian populations. I’m just wondering how many posters here would admit something should have been done now if Assad carries out another CW attack in the future.
mclaren
We need to stop this dithering around and get serious. I suggest a weekly game hosted by sprightly scantily-clad supermodel and a WWE pro wrestler. Together, they spin the WHEEL OF WAR! All the 208 nations in the world will be on the wheel, and wherever the wheel stops, that’s where we go to war.
This week, Tierra del Fuego! Next week, Norway! The week after that, Uzbekistan!
Think of the possibilities. Get a panel of top Washignton pundits to come up with justifications for the latest war:
GEORGE WILL: “Tierra del Fuego presents a clear and present danger to American interests–”
JOHN McCAIN: “I’ve never even heard of Tierra del Fuego. Can’t we come up with a better country to bomb?”
GEORGE STEPHANOPOLOUS: “Its very obscurity is the reason it’s been able to fly under our radar for so long. That’s why we need to bomb it.”
And so on. Tons ‘o fun for kids of all ages.
Ted & Hellen
@NobodySpecial:
We don’t like to talk about that, thank you.
Ted & Hellen
@Yatsuno:
Sorry.
I had beans for lunch.
Ted & Hellen
On this, the eve of our next GREAT AMERICAN WAR FUCK YEAH, a little reminder…
e.a.f.
So they want to go drop bombs on people in Syria because the president of Syria, or his brother, had chemical bombs dropped on Syrian people. Are we missing something here or what? There are 2 million refugees flooding the neighbouring countries. It might be in everybodies interest to give the neighbouring countries and the refugees a hand. If other countries simply ignore Assad and refuse to trade anything with him, eventually he will have nothing much left. Those who support him will stay, those who don’t will have moved on.
going to drop bombs on people in Syria because the government alledgedly used chemical weapons and killed about 1400 people is over kill. That many get killed in the U.S.A. every week because of guns and drunk driving. can we look forward to a bombing run over any American city which exceeds the 1,400 dead in a week.
The refugees which have fled Syria, left because they didn’t want to be bombed. However, should the U.S.A. or others decide to bomb Syria, these refugees may de-stablize the countries they fled to, with protests against the bombings.
The Americans still haven’t sorted out the problems of the veterans of the previous wars, don’t start another one. We don’t need more maimed and dead soliders.
If the American government wants to do something, let them go rebuild Detroit. It looks like a war zone.
Mnemosyne
@Comrade Dread:
Seriously? Have we really gotten so far away from WWI and Vietnam that no one remembers why chemical weapons are worse than conventional bullets and bombs?
Roger Moore
@feebog:
Like you, I feel that we ought to do something, but I want to make sure that we do something effective. My worst fear is that we’ll kill a bunch of innocent bystanders, not hurt Assad at all, and the effective message will be that there’s no real penalty for using chemical weapons even if Uncle Sam wants to do something about them. It’s the worst plausible case scenario, and I want to be convinced it won’t happen that way before we launch an attack.
Mnemosyne
@Anoniminous:
I agree. And yet when I say here that “doing nothing” is not an option and we need to push/persuade/convince the international community to get involved and punish Assad, I get accused of being the most warmongering warmongerer who ever warmongered.
There are a whole lot of people right here in this thread who actually think that doing nothing is a viable option, because chemical weapons aren’t that bad, and we should spend that money at home anyway. Maybe you should be spending some time explaining to them that this actually is a serious situation and not Iraq Part II with Kerry playing the part of Colin Powell.
Corner Stone
I’m not sure why Cole doesn’t just go to a Sully format where no comments are allowed.
Since the more tender souled amongst us can’t seem to bear the heavy burden of dissent, maybe that would be more comforting for them?
Or maybe run the vaunted pie filter in reverse? That way no actual comment would ever be made. People would only ever see pie filter approved comments that were morphed into bland, yet modernized, sound bytes.
ruemara
I did my bit, for today, on voicing opposition to strikes. DiFi is normally useless to contact on the phone but considering how irritated she has been sounding when she responds my emails, her contact form works well.
http://www.contactingthecongress.org/
Jewish Steel
@Just Some Fuckhead, Thought Leader:
‘s kinda beautiful, man – if you think about it.
sniff
Corner Stone
@Roger Moore:
Assad is salivating about the prospect of showing hundreds of dead civilians at every location we “attacked” on the world nightly news.
Doesn’t matter whether we killed them or they just dead. Those images will be running 24/7 in the MENA region, etc.
tybee
and there’s cute things like this to make you wonder about who gassed whom:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57592880/russia-syrian-rebels-made-used-sarin-nerve-gas/
http://www.mintpressnews.com/witnesses-of-gas-attack-say-saudis-supplied-rebels-with-chemical-weapons/168135/
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-05-05/news/sns-rt-us-syria-crisis-unbre94409z-20130505_1_chemical-weapons-sarin-syria
(links cheerfully stolen from booman’s place)
Corner Stone
@Mnemosyne:
HAHAHAHAHA!! Oh, mercy!
A “serious situation”? Ha! In-fucking-deed!
And that was EXACTLY what SecState Kerry did today! He sat right the fuck there and played the updated Powell bit-part.
LanceThruster
@tybee:
Careful. Even mention of the dreaded “false flag” meme will make you an instant persona non grata.
Jus’ sayin’.
NobodySpecial
Just for the infos, burning Dresden to the ground, burning Tokyo to a crisp, and years of rocket attacks and bombings on London did dick all to stop the leaders of said countries from doing whatever they wanted, including committing war crimes. Tell me again how a handful of Tomahawks is going to do what B-17 bombing runs couldn’t.
Keith G
I am noting, with a weird mix of frustration and humor, how many people are acting here as if there is a clear duality present. 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.
But I do not believe that he was taking this lightly. I think his 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, delaying 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.
Betty Cracker
@feebog:
Here’s one of the reasons I have misgivings about this entire enterprise: I don’t think the US, France, Saudi Arabia, et al, actually want to take Assad out. They know that with him gone, all sorts of unsavory types are likely to move in and take over all the chemical weapons he’s purchased from Russia and elsewhere. Assad must know this too.
LanceThruster
Here’s a solution. We could have M & M enterprises and Milo Minderbinder contract the Syrians to do their own bombing.
Everyone makes out because they all have a share in the syndicate!
Keith G
@Betty Cracker: I think that’s a given.
Then again, they may not have a thought out notion of how to now get to a better “next”. I assume that early in this conflict, they were betting on a “reasonable insider” to tear military support away from Asad with the outcome being a subsequent strong man we could have better relations with. I wonder if they think that this is even a remote possibility now-a-days?
EthylEster
@Trollhattan: How dare you suggest that US foreign policy cannot change the world! This is treason.
Snarking obviously.
But i think some people just cannot imagine the US being as powerless as, say, Belgium in this matter.
EthylEster
@Ted & Hellen: TZ, is that you?
chopper
@tybee:
demanding real proof of the future effectiveness of a military strike before allowing it is basically arguing for no military action of any sort, ever.
EthylEster
@Comrade Dread:
Thanks for mentioning this.
This IS something the US could do….but will not IMO.
EthylEster
@Just Some Fuckhead, Thought Leader: Pro tip…snark works better when it had been proofread….and edited to scan.
EthylEster
@Comrade Dread: Then why bother to ban chemical weapons?
Not your question, I realize.
But I am asking myself this now.
I think the impulse came from WWI, when people got disgusted by all the killing.
IMO getting injured by a anti-personnel mine is as horrible as sucking in mustard gas. But in the USA we have rejected the International Campaign to Ban Landmines. I’m not seeing the substantial difference.
LanceThruster
No matter what, it’s at least comforting to know you can always blame the homosexuals.
Yatsuno
@LanceThruster: YEE-HAW! Oh wait…
Keith G
@LanceThruster: This is my rifle. And this is my gun…..
Howard Beale IV
@Comrade Dread: Just look at Iraq with the scores of depleted Uranimum shells we uncorked over there.
LanceThruster
Even the hetero beast with two backs is interfering with us blasting folks to smaller pieces. I sure hope Jeebus gets here soon so *He* [PBUH] can sort them out.
The lesson is: Our God is vengeful! O spiteful one, show me who to smite and they shall be smoten!!! ~ Homer Simpson
Just Some Fuckhead, Thought Leader
@EthylEster: Right? It’s just so hard to proof on a mobile device.
Morbo
Can we all just admit that most of the American Syria discussion is more about remorse over Iraq than it is about the actual facts surrounding Syria?
Keith G
@EthylEster:
That’s NRA logic. Eg: Why add extra regulation to semi automatic rifles with big clips. After all, a bullet is still a bullet whether it come from a Single Shot 22 Long Rifle or an AR-15
Bill Arnold
@Howard Beale IV:
The internets say 29 years and 5 years respectively.
And VX (not Sarin I know) persists for a long time.
I agree though, use of nuclear weapons is worse.
Bill Arnold
@Villago Delenda Est:
Sure it does. Let’s say hypothetically that he did it. He would know that Putin and China would have his back, and would know that he could stir up sufficient doubt, that some people could be convinced that it was a false flag attack by the rebels, or by the Israelis, or the Americans, or some unholy alliance of all of the above. And the plus side from his POV is that the populace in rebel areas would know that they could in the future be attacked with nerve agents with impunity if they support rebels, sort of like snipers killing random protesters deterring involvement in future protests.
Not saying I believe this one way or another, just that if you game it out, there are plenty of reasons for him, or for elements in the Syrian security apparatus, to order such an attack.
tybee
@chopper:
insisting on the “true” results of a strike before it occurs is the definition of a liar.
tybee
@Morbo:
once bitten, twice shy.
Robert Sneddon
@Howard Beale IV: The Hiroshima Peace Park is pretty much directly on the hypocenter[0] of the plutonium bomb that exploded there in 1945. Residual radiation there is negligible and has been for decades. Downtown Nagasaki isn’t a desolate wasteland occupied by shambling mutant zombies but a bustling port and shipbuilding city. The Nevada test range where the US fired off hundreds of atmospheric nuclear weapons over a period of decades is a tourist spot nowadays, again negligible amounts of contamination and no special clothing required for visitors.
Love Canal and many other Superfund sites are still off-limits to the public and will be until they are expensively cleaned up since, unlike radiation, chemical contamination doesn’t decay. The fun-loving folks who developed chemical weapons produced persistent variants of their toys which last basically forever, to deny an enemy access to an area for a long time.
[0] Hypocenter, the point on the Earth’s surface directly under an airborne nuclear explosion. Don’t you just love the English language?
Ted Lawrence
@feebog: Brad Sherman has already announced that he supports the President (although he does want to put a time limit on how long troops can stay over there. He also said that he would vote to authorize troops on the ground because we couldn’t let the use of chemical weapons pass.