One thing that’s pretty clear about the Congressional vote on Syria: voting for an attack will not be popular. The Pew poll, (some interals at left), shows that people believe that there’s clear evidence that Assad used chemical weapons (53/23), yet opposition is 48-29 against. ABC’s poll was nearly 60-40 against, while Reuters-Ipsos showed a 56% majority opposing action.
The Congressional vote will be a “free vote”, with no whipping by either side, so it will be interesting to see if it’s they’ll be listening to the folks behind the greenroom door in DC instead of their constituents.
cvstoner
I think we already know the answer to that. Congress stopped listening to the majority a long time ago, without repercussion.
Patricia Kayden
The problem is that Americans don’t want boots on the ground (quite understandable) and a few military strikes most likely won’t do much to deter Assad (and his ilk) from using chemical weapons against his own people in the future.
Botsplainer
Or maybe this is a reflection of a thoroughly propagandized population, used to gettin their news through a closed loop of sources, some Teabaggerish, some firebaggerish, all of it organized in support of an agenda – the very definition of propaganda.
I find myself wondering if people are even capable of digesting nuance beyond soundbite simplicity anymore – you’re not, Cole isn’t, and only a smattering of folks I know can.
I’m not certain but that Murrow wouldn’t have gotten a giant “meh” on his McCarthy reporting in this day and age.
raven
Does anyone remember when Putin gassed the movie theater?
Betty Cracker
@Botsplainer: You don’t entertain the possibility that people can digest news from a variety of diverse sources, grasp nuance and still conclude that Syria is a giant clusterfuck that we’d do well to avoid?
debbie
@raven:
I did, especially when I heard him mocking whatever evidence he’d been shown about Syria.
WereBear
What about using EMP? A non-nuclear Electro Magnetic Pulse would fry their sophisticated equipment in a very targeted way, with zero casualties.
Linda Featheringill
@Betty Cracker:
“Syria is a giant clusterfuck”
This.
Linda Featheringill
@WereBear:
Oh, God! You want to kill the machines! :-)
Is is possible to localize an EMP and thus protect the adjacent electronics?
negative 1
@Betty Cracker: You’re optimistic. A majority of people get their news from diverse sources? Tell that to Roger Ailes
Baud
I’ve never been a huge believer in governing through polls, because too often the polls are against doing the right thing.
At bottom, I think it’s difficult to get Americans to believe that we should act when so much of the rest of the world doesn’t seem to care that much.
I don’t know what I would do if I were the one taking the vote in Congress. I think you’re rolling the dice regardless of what happens.
raven
That well know war monger Bob Menendez who voted against the invasion of Iraq isn’t in the 56%. I guess he’s just stupid, and Obot or both.
raven
@Baud: Nope, it’s cut and dried.
Betty Cracker
@negative 1: I didn’t mean to imply that a majority do get their news from diverse sources. Just saying that people can come to different viewpoints on this complicated issue without being bleating sheeple.
Gypsy Howell
I assume it’s a free vote because the administration and the congressional leaders already know “they’ve got this.” Just enough safe dems and safe repubs will vote yes for it to pass, so they can let the others “vote their conscience” to appease the gullibles back home (that’s us). If the vote were really in jeopardy, they’d be whipping like mad horsemen.
It’s over, Johnny.
Botsplainer
@Betty Cracker:
Oh, I absolutely do see that as a possibility. It’s just when I read certain posters, I see a reflexive anti force stance and a refusal to accept that people may have good reasons to support the application of force. That’s when I lose respect for the opinion.
I’m not sure who I hate more – the “kill ’em and let God sort it all out” people or the “if we would have all just made a more positive display of peace and non-violence, Hitler would have closed Auschwitz and Tojo would have closed the rape camps” people.
Of course, my world is loaded with grays, and I’m forced daily to help people choose the least worst of ugly decisions. I’m not a computer guy, an engineer or a salesmen – good results happen within ranges, and there are no absolutes.
Baud
@raven:
My Magic 8 ball says “Go for it!”
Gypsy Howell
@Baud:
Seeing as we are the ones who have to both fight and pay for it, don’t you think the American public ought to have a little say in whether we actually think it’s worth potentially starting a war? Not that we really do of course. The war pig must be fed, damn the American public.
daveNYC
This is one of those situations where politicians really should ignore the polls and go with what evidence they have been presented with. At least that’s the theory. Ends up falling face first into a puddle of battery acid in real life.
Baud
@Gypsy Howell:
I have no idea what you’re talking about. Americans are saying things right now. If you’re complaining we’re not a direct democracy, is any nation on matters such as this?
Botsplainer
@Gypsy Howell:
That’s what Congress is for, nimrod.
Slow morning at Kos or FDL?
NotMax
@WereBear
And how do you propose to generate one of sufficient intensity (much less target it)?
Electric stations and water pumping zapped, as would be people with pacemakers, cars, tractors, trains, planes and buses, not to mention hospitals, cellphones and computers.
Botsplainer
@Baud:
To be fair, neither does he.
Napoleon
@Botsplainer:
This from the authoritarian nutcase who pretends and act of war is not an act of war.
Napoleon
@Betty Cracker:
He is an authoritarian nutcase, Betty.
raven
Another well known warmonger weighs in:
“Not only is it the fact that we are having the debate but the QUALITY of the debate is heartening” ,
Rachel Maddow
Baud
@raven:
There have been good arguments on both sides and really crappy arguments on both sides, IMHO.
Gypsy Howell
@Baud:
I read your tone as having the distinct flavor of “the American people don’t know what’s good for them”. I think politicians should definitely pay attention to polls to help them determine what the American people think is the best course of action for America.
Gypsy Howell
@Baud:
I read your tone as having the distinct flavor of “the American people don’t know what’s good for them”. I think politicians should definitely pay attention to polls to help them determine what the American people think is the best course of action for America.
Botsplainer
@Napoleon:
What are you babbling about, Sparky? Sure the Syrians will see it as an act of war, and will react in whatever way they will react.
I don’t recall getting caught up in that ridiculous semantics thread.
NotMax
@Botsplainer
Sad to say, but it is an open question as to whether Murrow would even be granted airtime today.
Betty Cracker
@Botsplainer: Fair enough. There are factions on the pro-force side who are just as knee-jerky, insinuating that anyone with misgivings about the proposed Syrian adventure is objectively pro-Hitler, etc. It’s a struggle to maintain an assumption of good faith sometimes.
Comrade Dread
Maybe because we’re all tired of being told that every tinpot dictator who makes the news every month is a threat the level of Hitler that can only be stopped by getting the United States involved in another foreign war that doesn’t involve us or serve our national interests.
Botsplainer
@Gypsy Howell:
Thank you, Scott Rasmussen. Your concern is noted, and your push polling on low number samples will be lovingly caressed.
Now go find your fucking shine box.
Gypsy Howell
@Botsplainer:
Thank you. I know what Congress is for. My comment was in response to whether our elected representatives should consider polls in determining what it is exactly the American public they purportedly represent would like them to do.
Botsplainer
@Betty Cracker:
Actually, on a short term basis, there is a good case for leaving Assad alone, if all you’re worried about is the security of the Alawite and Christian minorities, and “do nothing” bellicosity vis a vis Israel. Long term, I think leaving him in place is a disaster, both on the issue of a blind eye on chemical weapons use and in terms of radicalizing larger numbers of Syrians as a result of poverty, war casualties and war damage. It would be one thing if it were confined to Syria, but it will spread to their cousins in Lebanon and Jordan via the stream of refugees, will help to midwife a Kurdish state into existence (creating issues in Turkey and Iraq), and will further destabilize that chunk of the world.
MomSense
@Botsplainer:
That is the world in which I live as well. The choices are rarely between “good” and “bad” options. Also, I have found that people are more likely to identify the risks of an action than they are of choosing not to take action.
Teresa
Congress can’t even be bothered to address the needs of the American people. They allow companies to kill Americans for profit. They have shown zero interest in addressing the lies that led to the Iraq invasion and two wars that have gone on for a decade. They haven’t given a shit in years.
Based on the actions of congress, they will work to get people killed and maimed (american and Syrian), make the contractors even more rich and then yell at each other while they slap pee-pees about how brave and awesome they are.
Then Congress and the American will forget about those that survive, are left crippled , wounded and in poverty.
Face it when it comes “military strikes” the people in power that we actually want to kill are hiding and safe. It’s the peasants that get blown to shit all the time.
hildebrand
@Betty Cracker: Yep. We need to remember that this is almost the perfect ‘you-can’t-win’ scenario. Trying to state, unequivocally, that any one position has cornered the truth is beyond foolish. The situation is awful, and there is no decision, including doing nothing, that will make this a fair shot better any time soon.
So, we do what messy representational republics do, we have our politicians argue and blather and make a decision, and hope to God that is wasn’t the stupidest thing in the world. While they are doing it, we make our conflicting voices heard, and hope that its only a minor disaster that hopefully goes in the right direction for the people of Syria. Whatever it is that they actually want (which we don’t know either).
mistermix
@Botsplainer:
I’ve given reasons for why I don’t think it’s a good idea to go into Syria. You just don’t agree with them, so instead you characterize them as ill thought-out rather than acknowledging their existence.
raven
@hildebrand: Nah, it’s about “dick waving” and “another Nobel”.
Belafon
Kind of like when Southern Democrats voted with their constituents against the ACA.
I will not be surprised if it gets voted down, and I will not be surprised if it passes.
NotMax
@raven
If the final bill includes naming it Operation Ronald Reagan, the mad rush to pass may trample several pages and staffers.
Betty Cracker
@Botsplainer: But isn’t the action being contemplated designed to leave Assad in place?
Figs
@Betty Cracker: Not to mention the small matter of who takes his place, should he be ousted.
MomSense
Did anyone catch Putin’s latest statements? All of a sudden he is saying Russia “doesn’t exclude” a UN authorized military strike against Syria.
Wag
@NotMax:
In honor of the marines who died in the barracks in Lebanon.
Belafon
I asked on DK recently what would happen if it passed, and what if Pelosi, Warren, Gilibrand, and Duckworth actually vote for it? My favorite response was “Unfortunately, Warren’s not particularly progressive when it comes to foreign policy.”
I can’t wait to find out how many true Scotsmen there are after this vote.
fka AWS
@Belafon:
You go to a vote with the Scotsmen you have, not the Scotsmen you wish you had.
And anyway, all the True Scotsmen are dead.
different-church-lady
Sorry to go OT and tech on you, however…
After about two weeks of patient monitoring, it’s now pretty evident that BJ is doing something to crash my Firefox 12.0 Mac on a regular basis. Like, once a day, but only maybe once in every two dozen reloads. It’s always when I’m reloading BJ. The infrequency makes me wonder if it’s ad related.
Sorry, I know that’s not very helpful for troubleshooting, but it’s all I got right now. Wondering if anyone else is experiencing similar things.
MomSense
@different-church-lady:
Same for me.
Corner Stone
@Botsplainer:
Truly, a display of carefully nuanced irony, if ever it had been displayed.
Linda Featheringill
BTW, a summary of several “whip counts” of Senate and House members:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/09/03/1236085/-Whip-count-for-House-of-Representatives-vote-on-resolution-regarding-use-of-military-force-in-Syria
It looks like the “undecided” vote is winning at this stage.
different-church-lady
@Betty Cracker:
(a) Designed to leave him in place, or (b) not designed to directly take him out? There’s a difference.
My sense on the “not designed for regime change” comments is that there’s a nudge nudge wink wink component: “We’re not intending to take Assad out. But if what we do leads to him being gone, well, stuff happens, I guess…”
Corner Stone
@Belafon:
I’m not sure how that’s a “true Scotsmen” moment. It doesn’t disavow her, or at least the part you quoted does not. I’ve never met a politician I agreed with on all policy decisions, have you?
negative 1
@Botsplainer: Be careful of thinking the consequences too far ahead. A Kurdish state may come to be, but if it does at best this will be tangential. They either will or won’t be successful in a larger struggle. In my way of thinking the decision to use force is basically predicated on one’s belief at the proper response to using chemical weapons weighed against making matters worse for those we are aiming to help (I think we should intervene, I know I’m in the minority).
Plus, use of the word “midwife” gives people unfortunate flashbacks to the MOU.
Anya
I am seriously conflicted about this issue. It’s clear that the murderous Assad regime must be stopped and the people of Syria need protection. However, if we get into this war, I am afraid it will create more chaos and it will lead to more blood shed. Syria is a such a cluster fuck in a fucked up and complicated region. I am afraid there are no viable options here.
Corner Stone
@different-church-lady: The WH has already stated its position that Assad should go, and the terminology I’m hearing is to strike “regime military” targets.
I don’t think they’re being very subtle on the approach.
srv
@Botsplainer: I hate more the people who think there’s nuance in the application of force to not achieve regime change but achieve regime change but not overtly admit that.
Courageous, that.
State the real overt objectives and then take a poll. The audience doesn’t have confidence, and for once, they’re being realists. Objectively, y’all have no argument to achieve the goals you really want or the goal of suppressing CW use in a regime that is literally fighting to the death against everyone but the Russians and Hezbollah.
If you don’t want regime change and you want to insure Assad will never use CW again, there is only one way to achieve that. Drop sarin on an Alawhite village. Everything else is just Orientalist Wanking.
joes527
@Corner Stone: This is the guy who admitting to getting off on police violence when the targets are folks he disapproves of.
He digs violence for its own sake. If I were to go all psycho-analytic I’d say he has daddy issues, but that is bullshit.
He is just a nasty piece of work.
El Caganer
If use of chemical weapons by the Syrian government can’t go unpunished, what is the appropriate U.S. response to use of chemical weapons by Syrian rebels?
Betty Cracker
@different-church-lady: You could be right. My impression is they’ll very carefully avoid harming Assad himself since the people who are likely to rush in to fill the void are nuttier than a squirrel turd. Of course, McCain wants to kill-kill-kill, but that’s his default setting, I guess.
mistermix
@different-church-lady: Hmm, the current version of Firefox is 23. If you’re running 12.0, maybe they’ve fixed the issue. Can you upgrade?
Belafon
@Corner Stone: Not me, no. And I don’t expect this vote to be indicative of what a vote would look like if, say, Syria were to attack Lebanon with chemical weapons. But I do expect to see a number of “Well, I never actually considered him/her progressive anyway.”
Corner Stone
@El Caganer:
SecState Powell, err…I mean SoS Kerry bravely, gravely assured us all that we have no doubts the only actors who had used CW are the Assad regime.
I felt a deep sinking feeling listening to his presentation to the Senate yesterday. I’ve never taken LSD so I can only imagine what a trippy flashback feels like but I have to say that was similar.
GregB
@raven:
They were showing a Paulie Shore film so that was understandable.
Mike E
@raven: OT but not really, did you see the PBS docu on the Bikini H-bomb test? Apparently, the solid lithium 6 fuel was “buffered” by lithium 7 which heretofore was considered “inert”–when the A-bomb stage fused the payload, lithium 7 loses a neuron to become LITHIUM 6 also. Too. The 5 megaton device instantly became a 15 megaton yield. The. Largest. US. Detonation. Ever. To this day! Ouch.
They shoulda kept the Trinity folks on board who were against such a device, at least for, you know, raising doubts about the math on a device that could potentially fuck a lot of shit up.
DaveinMaine
@Corner Stone: So because Bush and Powell lied that means Obama and Kerry are?
cleek
@MomSense:
and Kerry is saying we can’t rule out the use of combat troops should chemical weapons end up in the wrong hands (which blowing up the people who currently control them is pretty likely to facilitate).
and, the current proposed AUMF gives them a lot of wiggle room to get those boots in there.
Kropadope
If none of our options are good, if bombing Syrian military infrastructure leaves us in just as risky a situation as if we had left them alone (FWIW, I think bombing is actually riskier), shouldn’t we just default to the option that doesn’t further indebt the U.S. Treasury and doesn’t leave grieving Syrian families bemoaning American bombs?
Corner Stone
WTF?
Wow. Congressional delegate or BJ commenter? With all the nuance going on it’s sometimes hard to tell.
DaveinMaine
@Kropadope: Except that then that inaction tells Assad (and any other leader for that matter) that using chemical weapons isn’t a problem anymore. Which has been one of the few successful – for the most part – limitations on warfare since WW1: the non-use of chemical weapons.
Corner Stone
@DaveinMaine: I found the wording, presentation and presentation style, in conjunction with the actual evidence contained in the statement to be very disheartening.
Kropadope
@cleek: Well, if Assad fell and people were trying to smuggle chemical weapons out of Syria, having our troops out there will likely be a better way to stop them, as far as mitigating civilian casualties, obtaining intelligence, etc. Although, it puts our people more in harm’s way.
Why make such an expensive commitment to something with no good options and no good potential outcomes, ensuring that the eventual bad outcome rebounds even more forcefully on us?
DaveinMaine
@Corner Stone: That’s fair. I found the evidence (location of launches and strikes, the complete lack of hits on regime-controlled areas and the order to don masks), added to the actual people dead from chemical weapons, to be more compelling than aluminum tubes.
elmo
@Kropadope:
God, yes. Yes, yes, yes, yes, and yes. Also yes. And more yes.
Fuck yes.
gypsy howell
@DaveinMaine:
OK and by the same token, just because it’s Obama and Kerry talking, you’re sure they AREN’T lying? It sure has an eerie, sickening similarity to all the bullshit we heard in 2002-2003..
Corner Stone
@DaveinMaine:
Oh, get off it. Saddam paid for using chemical weapons, twenty odd years later. If we’d have nailed him within 6 months do you think that would stop or change Assad’s thinking 25 years later?
Assad is in this to win this. He has no other options.
And if we do bomb some number of Assad facilities now do you think in 5 or 10 years some leader in NoKo or other part of the world would think twice about gassing his/her own people if their necks were on the chopping block?
Kropadope
@DaveinMaine: “Except that then that inaction tells Assad (and any other leader for that matter) that using chemical weapons isn’t a problem anymore.”
It doesn’t say that it’s not a problem anymore. It says that we recognize that we would be ill-advised to try to do anything about it. It would also show that we’re willing to make progress on another problem, using the U.S. Military as the world police.
Mike E
@Kropadope: Let the blue helmets do this. Wait however long it takes for the UN vote to authorize it. 2014. It’ll coincide with our exit in Afghanistan.
gypsy howell
@DaveinMaine:
See Point #7:
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/09/your-labor-day-syria-reader-part-2-william-polk/279255/
magurakurin
@Botsplainer:
Nothing to do with any argument on anyone’s part, but this quote doesn’t have the effect I think users think it does. At least not to me. This makes you Billy Batts, and you don’t wanna be Billy Batts, because Tommy DeVito definitely gets the better of the exchange that night. A better quote might be
“you’re a fuckin mumblin, stutterin little fuck, you know that?” That makes the person you hurl it at Spider, and they definitely don’t wanna be Spider.
ultimately you don’t want to be Tommy either, but….
DaveinMaine
@Corner Stone: Yes, I do think it would make a difference. It’s the whole reason Assad hasn’t gone wider – he wants to see if he can get away with it.
And just because Reagan was a shit and turned a blind eye to Saddam (and worse, helped him out) doesn’t mean we can’t do anything now.
DaveinMaine
@gypsy howell: Which is why I said “for the most part”. I’d also note that whatever Churchill wanted to do if the Blitz worked, his military staff unanimously refused to countenance the use of chemical weapons.
I just don’t believe that past mistakes are a validation to keep us from acting now.
Felonius Monk
Mr. Kerry appeared before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 1971 and offered this testimony in part:
Comparing that to his testimony yesterday before said same committee, it seems he’s done a 180. Hmm, I guess you see things differently when you occupy a seat of power and conveniently seem to forget from whence you came.
Keith G
The recently passed March on Washington anniversary reminds me that it can be very important for legislators to know when to listen to their constituents and when not to.
flukebucket
@Betty Cracker:
The entire Middle East is a giant clusterfuck. I am just amazed that we have not figured that out after 70 years of blundering around over there.
AxelFoley
@Napoleon:
The irony of someone with the username Napoleon calling someone else an authoritarian nutcase…
Kropadope
@Felonius Monk: Well, I think the point of no-boots-on-the-ground is to not put American lives on the line.
Cacti
@Botsplainer:
I think opposition and or indifference to action in Syria has as much to do with Iraq buyer’s remorse as it does with merits of action in Syria.
gypsy howell
@DaveinMaine:
Ok, I agree. Past performance is no guarantee of future results. It’s the “DO” part I’m concerned about. I don’t see the efficacy of what we plan to do. (And, I know I should duck now, but I’m not totally convinced that Assad was the one who used the CW. And sadly, yes, I do believe our government would lie to us about it, or at least about their certainty of it. You have to admit, there’s a loooooong history of that from both parties.)
Cacti
@Mike E:
In what alternate reality does Russia not backstop Assad on the UN Security Council?
Corner Stone
@DaveinMaine:
People continue to use this reasoning but I disagree with it. What if the more likely reason he used Sarin was because he wanted to send the message to the rebels? And not actually probe the world community?
Have you looked at where Syria is on the map? Assad’s got a great little set up going, and he knows nobody’s coming after him. Except for the rebels.
IMO, that’s what the message of using CW was all about.
DaveinMaine
@gypsy howell: And I can’t argue that. Our government…hell, any government, has a history of lying to its people. And Iraq was a lie of the first magnitude that should have put people in jail and didn’t.
I guess maybe I should put it this way. If it was the rebels using chemical weapons, I’d say we should hit them.
cleek
@Cacti:
ignoring the (presumed) result of a UN vote just because we don’t like that result? the previous President taking a lot of flak for that kind of attitude. mostly from the left, IIRC.
either we’re in the UN or not. because ignoring it when it’s inconvenient is the kind of shit that makes countries hate us.
DaveinMaine
@Corner Stone: And what if that isn’t what he is doing? What if it’s a case where he can’t make the progress he needs to make against the rebels and needs a game-changer now because he can’t hang on another two years. So he uses sarin to clear areas in his home base to gain some ground.
In that case, inaction tells him that this is a legitimate strategy to take. And then maybe he clears the Daraa – Damascus corridor doing the same thing.
You might be right. But then again, maybe I am.
Cacti
@cleek:
Or one could simply ignore the reality that Russia is the primary supplier of military hardware to the Assad regime, has billions of rubles invested in Syria, and has their only sea port to the Mediterranean located there, but it’s not particularly realistic in assessing the probability or utility of UN Security Council intervention in this case.
Russia also vetoed intervention in Kosovo, hence Clinton going through NATO. So, your just like Dubya analogy fails.
Kropadope
Wait, what am I doing here? I should be phoning the office of Joe Kennedy III.
Betty Cracker
@cleek: I agree that the “let’s flout global opinion on the use of force in this case to enforce global opinion on the use of chemical weapons in this case” argument isn’t particularly persuasive. On the other hand, the UN Security Council setup, with its WWII-vestige superpower seats, is bullshit too. That clanky-ass org chart needs an overhaul. Perhaps we should focus the prestige of our “world’s largest ammo dump” status on backing some reforms?
Corner Stone
@DaveinMaine: The use of CW in this instance seems, IMO, to be about two things. First, telling your enemies that you will absolutely go the distance before it’s all over. Second, it’s a defensive maneuver that now forces any advancing enemy to slow down and be terrified every single time a shell is exploded in their area.
It says, “Hey, guess what? Yep, I just gassed *right outside* Damascus. Come get a taste.”
lamh36
Late to this thread and on break from work so this will be a drive-by comment. I’ve said it before and I truly believe that unless/until Chem Weapons used on American citizens/military Americans won’t care. Its the say as with all the privacy issues. its always ok for the guvt to spy on those people but when they start spying on “us” oh hell naw.
If such an attack was to happen I fully expect polls to change so I ask, if that were to occur and we want politicians to follow the polls then?
cleek
@Cacti:
i’m not ignoring that. it’s impossible to ignore that. but, the fact that other countries have interests which don’t harmonize with ours doesn’t mean we get a pass.
either we’re in the UN and abide by its rules, or we should get out. because, again, pretending to give a shit about it only when it suits our interests is exactly what the last President did, and it’s why a lot of countries hate us.
“the UN is irrelevant because it might say ‘No'” is the Decider’s way. like it or not.
Cacti
@cleek:
I see you completely sidestepped the other issue of Clinton going around Russia to intervene in Kosovo via NATO.
So was he also wrong and just like Dubya, before Dubya was POTUS, or was it different in that case because of reasons?
ETA: I’d say that NATO has a more compelling case for intervention in Syria than it did in Kosovo. NATO member Turkey shares a common border with Syria, and has exchanged artillery fire with Assad’s forces during the course of this conflict.
cleek
@Cacti:
NATO is obviously the difference.
is NATO involved in the Syria thing? no? then why’d you bring it up?
ETA: I’d say that NATO has a more compelling case for intervention in Syria than it did in Kosovo.
as soon as Turkey wants to make the case that Syria is a threat, it’s welcome to. it hasn’t done that yet.
Cacti
@cleek:
So your larger point means Kosovo was wrong too, and it was preferable to leave Milosevic to his own devices?
joes527
@Betty Cracker: On what planet would UN reforms not include a reduction in power of the US? And on what planet would the US allow (much less push for) said reforms?
Mike E
@Cacti: On my big B-J board of RISK, I get to throw 3 dice. What game of reality are you playing?
ETA Ooh, it’s Trollnado!
Cacti
@cleek:
Turkey does support intervention in Syria.
Assad’s former Defense Minister defected there today. Seven generals and 20 colonels in the Syrian Army have defected there with their families. A forensic expert claiming to carry evidence of Assad’s involvement in the chemical attacks defected there yesterday.
The Arab League also supports a response to the Assad regime’s use of chemical weapons.
Suggesting that no one but the US is interested in this is disingenuous at best.
cleek
@Cacti:
at the time, it was questionable, and of questionable legality. the net result was indeed positive. there are plenty of examples where bypassing the UN hasn’t turned out so well (Libya, Iraq, etc)
that’s an interesting phrase. were you a big Iraq war cheerleader, too?
Cacti
@joes527:
I can’t imagine any scenario where the permanent members of the Security Council would willingly relinquish power.
cleek
@Cacti:
“how about you beat up my asshole neighbor” is not quite the same thing as demanding a NATO-led action.
but not as disingenuous as putting words in other people’s mouths…
Cacti
@cleek:
But was it inaccurate? The decision to intervene or to do nothing isn’t an academic exercise. Civilians were being ruthlessly slaughtered. The decision to do nothing was, in effect, the decision to allow that to continue unabated.
Adherence to the prime directive vs. human life. You appear to prefer the former.
Ted & Hellen
@different-church-lady:
It would be the best thing for your computer if you would just stop coming to BJ.
Thanks.
Lady Bug
@gypsy howell:
I don’t think there is an analogy at all to the lies made about Iraq’s nuclear/chemical weapons ability made in 2003, and what happened in Syria in 2013, which was an actual documented attack with actual dead civilians, except that it shows just how acutely traumatized the country has become as a result of Iraq and how much Iraq is influencing views on Syria.
But, what would be Obama’s motives for wanting to willfully pass wrong information about chemical weapons attack that would involve possible military action (even in the terms of sending a few missiles over military targets in Syria) in a military conflict he has been trying to avoid for the past two years?
I think when Obama made the “red line” remark, he certainly wouldn’t envision Assad (or anyone else for that matter) actually willfully breaking that red line. I also think that even if hadn’t made the red line remark, there would still be pressure on Obama to respond militarily to the use of chemical weapons.
cleek
@Cacti:
you answer my question first: were you a big Iraq war supporter or not?
that is exactly the argument we heard from Iraq war boosters, hundreds of times every day. “he gassed his own people!”
i’ve never said it was. i’ve always asserted that our unilateral intervention in Syria will lead to more deaths than not intervening.
MomSense
@cleek:
Just to be clear, Turkey is a member of NATO and we do have shared security agreements in place.
Jockey Full of Malbec
@WereBear:
Nice idea. But you can’t focus an EMP (that I know of), and civilian electronics (being softer) would take most of the hit anyway.
Hospital equipment would fail in the middle of surgeries, civilian airplanes would fall out of the sky, thousands would get trapped in elevators and subway lines (if they have subway lines in Syria), first-responder comms would fail, newer automobiles would suddenly be unable to steer or brake as their computers fried, etc.
We’d end up hurting the very weakest members of the population, not the Syrian military. Even those of us who are for intervention wouldn’t want that.
Patricia Kayden
@Anya: The only viable option I see is if countries with influence over Syria convince Assad to voluntarily step down (perhaps Russia or Iran). Not sure if that would ever happen though.
Mnemosyne
@cleek:
Saddam was accused of gassing his own people 15 years previously, in 1988. Assad is accused of gassing his own people 14 days ago. So, no, this isn’t the same kind of accusation unless you have a very short attention span.
Cacti
@cleek:
No, I wasn’t. I found the “evidence” of WMD to be questionable or non-existent. I also felt like public fear over 9/11 was being cynically manipulated to make war on a country that wasn’t even tangentially involved in those attacks.
Not everything is Iraq, and Obama is not Dubya. This goes to my previous point that opposition to intervention in Syria is as much about Iraq buyer’s remorse as it is about the merits of what happened in Syria.
Now your turn, was it preferable to leave Milosevic to his own devices? Does the UN Charter exist for the benefit of humans, or do humans exist for the benefit of the UN Charter?
@cleek:
Still disingenuous as ever. No intervention has as yet taken place, and multiple nations in the region and the world support a response to violation of the 1993 convention on chemical weapons.
Mike in NC
@flukebucket:
That sweet addictive smell of oil…
cleek
@Mnemosyne:
are you honestly saying you don’t recall the “so you would rather leave Saddam in power?” argument all the time in 2003? seriously?
cleek
@Cacti:
again, an argument i didn’t make.
i’ve already said the end result was positive.
maybe you should read my sentences all the way to the end. i wrote: “i’ve always asserted that our unilateral intervention in Syria will lead to…”
future perfect tense, do you grok it?
has provisions for conflict resolution, which we are apparently not following.
joes527
@Cacti:
Coming from the guy who admitted yesterday that this has nothing to do with helping Syrians, that’s pretty rich.
Mnemosyne
@MomSense:
If all of this dick-waving and other diplomatic pressure is starting to convince Putin to let the blue helmets do their thing, I say pull ’em out and wave ’em around.
I guess that’s my question for the anti-interventionists: would you support action sponsored and sanctioned by the UN that the US participated in, or are you against all action in Syria?
Corner Stone
@Cacti:
Considering that his actual argument is related to the adherence to the UN (or not), this is indeed a very disingenuous statement on your part.
Considering this is the actual support the AL offered:
“Arab League urges UN-backed action in Syria”
Enhanced Voting Techniques
@gypsy howell:
Except this is 2013, not 2002. The Bush admin wanted the Iraq War long before they were elected, produced “evidence” that was discredited at the time like the yellow cakes, claimed the UN weapon inspectors were inept for not producing the results the Bush admin wanted, labeled any US politician who didn’t go along with the war a surrender monkey and so on. Bush was lying and everyone but everyone at the time knew it. Maybe I am not paying attention but were has the Obama administration done anything like that with Syria?
Mnemosyne
@cleek:
Oh, I remember the argument. I also remember thinking, “But that shit happened 15 years ago! Why is it suddenly urgent that we invade now over something that happened 15 years ago?” When something happened that long ago, the place to deal with it is at the person’s trial at the Hague, not with an invasion.
OTOH, I understand the urgency of wanting to do something about an action that happened less than 2 weeks ago.
fuckwit
@MomSense: That’s actually a good thing, if he means it. Would make sense though; it is NOT in Putin’s or Russia’s best interests to sit back and allow chemical weapons to be viewed as acceptable. In particular, I’d like for him to spend a few nights awake wondering what happens when the Chechens start releasing it in Moscow movie theaters…… oh wait.
So I hope the obstacles in the UN clear and they decide to go forward there. I really think the UN should be doing the fucking World Police gig. I’m waiting for them to step up. Maybe they will if Congress decides to pass, or maybe that ball will start voting even before Congress votes.
PaulW
My question, and I haven’t seen it here yet or any answers to it since the comments are pretty thick already, but anyway:
What was the polling for/against the Iraqi invasion in 2002/03? I seem to recall the numbers were about high-50s for the invasion when it started, even though there were noticeable street protesting against the invasion.
I kinda know why there’s not a lot of outrage on the streets – lesson learned: the politicians don’t care about street protests unless they’re by gun-wielding pro-fetus fanatics – but this time around there’s a clear disconnect between Washington DC and the pundits (pro-bombing Syria) and the general public (open refusal to support another war front).
It’d be nice if there was a way for the voters disgusted by the war-fever crowd to vote them out, but how do you vote out the media elites who keep the same green-room guests over and over again? How can you risk voting out the pro-bomb Democrats without incurring the chance of a wingnut Republican winning those districts and making the House/Congress worse? Would primary-ing those Democrats with Dems who openly oppose military action work?
(can’t argue this on the Republican side: I’m currently of the opinion that the GOP is beyond saving and should collapse under their own growing hypocrisy)
joes527
@Mnemosyne:
That’s easy. If someone could come up with a plan with a stated goal to make things better in Syria, and the plan had at least an outside chance of achieving that goal, I’d be all in.
Bomb the problems that we can’t figure out? Not so much.
Patricia Kayden
@lamh36: Isn’t that true of all nations? Didn’t the UK just vote against military intervention in Syria? Most people care more about what happens to those within their national borders (and usually only about certain people within their borders) than what happens to people outside their countries.
The issue is not that people (including Americans) don’t care about Assad using chemicals against his own citizens. The issue is what is the best response to this and who should respond. Not sure that America has to take the lead in any response to Assad.
catclub
@NotMax: How about Operation Ronald Reagan Lebanon 1983? Take sides in a civil war while pretending to be peacekeeping. Get 243 Marines killed in largest ever truckbombing. Leave with tail between legs. Declare victory.
AKA Operation Clusterfuck.
different-church-lady
@mistermix: I think maybe, but not right now — I tend to upgrade slowly and only when I know I have enough time to deal with any upset apple carts (no pun intended).
Isn’t a big deal, just wanted to say something so you’d be alerted to whether it was a a wider problem than just me.
different-church-lady
@Ted & Hellen: What a coincidence! My computer feels the same about you!
Mnemosyne
@joes527:
Except that the action that the UN would take would have the specific goal of punishing Assad, not of trying to make things better. So you would be opposed to international action with the goal of punishing Assad since it wouldn’t do anything to make things better?
joes527
@Mnemosyne: Yeah, well then, no.
“Can’t figure out anything constructive to do, so lets bomb something” is a stupid plan whether it is US or UN based. And anyone who thinks we/you/they can “punish” Assad w/o owning the result is a moron.
Unintended consequences are a bitch.
Dave
@El Caganer
Or use of chemical weapons by anybody, for that matter.
SectarianSofa
@Botsplainer:
Your nuance-ometer is broken, when you’re throwing all computer guys, engineers, or salesmen into the see-no-grays camp. I’d say it was ironic, but I’m chalking it up to nuance-overload-exhaustion (which I’m personally familiar with).
I suppose I am a ‘computer guy’ among other things, but I agree with your sentiments otherwise.
“good results happen within ranges, and there are no absolutes.” Pretty much how I feel about the Obama presidency, which I support and do not expect miracles from.