Obviously, I am opposed to us getting involved (which puts me firmly with the overwhelming majority of the nation, fwiw) in Syria, but I am willing to let you all give me your best arguments why I am wrong. Here is the resolution that came out of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (.pdf):
This joint resolution may be cited as the ‘‘Authoriza3
tion for the Use of Military Force Against the Government
4 of Syria to Respond to Use of Chemical Weapons’’.
5 SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES
6 ARMED FORCES.
7 (a) AUTHORIZATION.—The President is authorized,
8 subject to subsection (b), to use the Armed Forces of the
9 United States as the President determines to be necessary
10 and appropriate in a limited and specified manner against
11 legitimate military targets in Syria, only to—
12 (1) respond to the use of weapons of mass de13
struction by the Government of Syria in the conflict
14 in Syria;
15 (2) deter Syria’s use of such weapons in order
16 to protect the national security interests of the
17 United States and to protect United States allies
18 and partners against the use of such weapons;
19 (3) degrade Syria’s capacity to use such weap20
ons in the future; and
21 (4) prevent the transfer to terrorist groups or
22 other state or non-state actors within Syria of any
23 weapons of mass destruction.
How are limited strikes, assuming they are 100% accurate, supposed to handle all of those goals? What’s to stop Assad from saying to hell with it, they are already attacking me, and doubling down and using more chemical weapons, assuming he actually did use them- babies ripped from incubators, anyone? Aluminum tubes? Then what. Who are the rebels? Do we really want them assuming control in the power vacuum if these limited strikes “succeed.”
Again, straight up questions here, I’ve stated my position and asked you to make your case. No trolling, so try not to devolve into the usual bullshit in the comments.
Again, personally, I think we could get a lot more bang for the buck, if you will, if instead of launching expensive munitions which will most certainly lead to blowback in the future, we spent all the money on relief efforts for the refugees. But that’s just me.
Bob
Saudi Arabia is footing the bill.
schrodinger's cat
Why were you with Bush when he wanted to go into Iraq using BS reasons? What made you change your stance by 180 degrees when it comes to war?
Mary G
I haven’t chimed in on these threads since I was torn, but I’ve decided I am against interposing ourselves in Syria.
ranchandsyrup
I agree with ya John, which is a little frightening based on yr track record. But I kid, I kid.
ETA: Riddle me this my brother can you handle it? Your style to my style you can’t hold a candle to it.
eemom
and NO FAIR repeating arguments from any of the last 8 million threads. Right Cole?
ruemara
See, that’s why I’m against it. It’s not worth it to me. And it won’t solve anything.
magurakurin
I realize it is just a feeling gained from reading through the threads, but my feeling is that most people here are(me included), in fact, opposed to a strike in Syria. It’s just that the same folks are very conflicted over it and very troubled by the whole affair and have taken offence at some of your flip and off-handed attempts to paint the whole affair as just another Iraq.
Chief
I am un-alterably opposed to any military action that is not used to repel invaders from the United States.
For the record, in my 21 years in the U.S. Navy, I have 35 months of combat time. People get maimed & killed. Vietnam and Iraq were horrible mistakes
Villago Delenda Est
“The Rebels” are themselves often in conflict with one another. As in Libya, what holds them loosely together is their shared hatred of Assad.
No Assad, then what the fuck happens.
Charlie Foxtrot, people.
John Cole
@magurakurin: Link to me comparing this to Iraq, bitte.
Omnes Omnibus
Ignoring the aluminum tubes snideness…. Those are all valid questions. So are questions like these: If we don’t do anything will Assad feel emboldened and do it again on a massive scale. What if we could have prevented it? What is the purpose of having the prohibitions on use of chemical weapons if no one is going to give a shit? What if the relatives of the people who are gassed in the future get a hard-on against the West for failing to take action and become terrorists?
It isn’t an easy situation.
Also, there is no reason that massive humanitarian efforts should not be underway. That shouldn’t even be in question.
NCSteve
So what if we do nothing and all that stuff happens anyway except now we’ve announced to the world that as far as we’re concerned, the brakes are off on the use of chemical weapons from now on, as long as they’re not used on us?
Schlemizel
The civilized nations decided nearly a hundred years ago that chemical gas was outside the bounds of acceptable weaponry. We now stand in front of evidence that a bad guy used chemical weapons and we either punish him and send the message that the use of WMDs will not be taken lightly or we turn a blind eye and let other ruthless murderers know they just might get away with it.
My heartburn comes from the fact that the rest of the world is happy to stand around with their thumbs up their collective asses and say “We’ll gladly hold your coat while you kick that guys ass”. America can’t make this right by itself and if the rest of the world is not willing to step up than the Geneva conventions and all the treaties that followed are worth nothing more than your opponent can do about it. I’m OK with that oddly. If Syria wants to gas Syrians, Lebanese, Israelis, Turks then fine, if they won’t stand with us now fuck ’em. Should they ever fuck with us we can retaliate then. Is amoral but if thats the way the world wants it to be I’m OK with it.
Patricia Kayden
I’m also against the US leading any military strikes against Syria. But I understand the arguments on the other side. Good intentions aren’t enough though to keep military intervention from going awry.
AA+ Bonds
It’s just like our “nuclear sanctions” against Iran that actually say that they’ll be in force until the government there is overthrown. The government’s lying to you, and the people they hope to satisfy don’t believe what they’re telling you for a second. What Syria’s government does or does not do in response has little relevance to those in power.
areallygoodhandle
Just STFU wr0ng way Cole with your Greenwald bullshit. Just stick to shit you are capable of understanding like your cats and dogs.
Omnes Omnibus
@Schlemizel:
Ultimately, this is the argument for acting. The problem is that there isn’t really any proportional military option that will be effective. Nevertheless, the international community should be looking for ways to punish Assad and his cronies – personally.
LanceThruster
General “Buck” Turgidson: General Ripper called Strategic Air Command headquarters shortly after he issued the go code. I have a portion of the transcript of that conversation if you’d like me to to read it.
President Merkin Muffley: Read it!
General “Buck” Turgidson: Ahem… The Duty Officer asked General Ripper to confirm the fact that he *had* issued the go code, and he said, uh, “Yes gentlemen, they are on their way in, and no one can bring them back. For the sake of our country, and our way of life, I suggest you get the rest of SAC in after them. Otherwise, we will be totally destroyed by Red retaliation. Uh, my boys will give you the best kind of start, 1400 megatons worth, and you sure as hell won’t stop them now, uhuh. Uh, so let’s get going, there’s no other choice. God willing, we will prevail, in peace and freedom from fear, and in true health, through the purity and essence of our natural… fluids. God bless you all” and he hung up.
[beat]
General “Buck” Turgidson: Uh, we’re, still trying to figure out the meaning of that last phrase, sir.
President Merkin Muffley: There’s nothing to figure out, General Turgidson. This man is obviously a psychotic.
General “Buck” Turgidson: We-he-ell, uh, I’d like to hold off judgement on a thing like that, sir, until all the facts are in.
President Merkin Muffley: General Turgidson! When you instituted the human reliability tests, you *assured* me there was *no* possibility of such a thing *ever* occurring!
General “Buck” Turgidson: Well, I, uh, don’t think it’s quite fair to condemn a whole program because of a single slip-up, sir.
Emma
I am concerned about two things. One, the long term effects of the use of chemical weapons. And two, the idea that from now on anyone who wants to use them will feel free to do it (and that brings me back to one).
I suppose there are worse things than turning isolationist. Until the next crazy man gets the idea that the rest of the world will let him get away with it.
Neutron Flux
I agree with you about putting the money into relief efforts. Funny how veterans think alike.
Ash Can
What’s to argue? Every alternative is crappy; all we can do is to hope for the least crappy one. I have no reason to believe that either Obama or Kerry is a war monger, despite any and all rhetoric coming from them and/or anyone associated with them. Nor do I believe that Obama either wants or would allow involvement in Syria to resemble W’s Iraqi clusterfuck in any way, shape, or form — get in, get out, like in Libya. I can also see how Obama the law expert would be predisposed to honoring the treaty obligations of the US. Nevertheless, I cringe at the thought of any US involvement in Syria and hope that my original hunch that the amount of wiggle room the administration left itself in its pronouncements regarding intervention will ultimately lead to little or no real action — which may make Obama and his admin look silly, but I’d take that over getting a bunch of people killed and many times more than that pissed off at us.
gussie
@Schlemizel:
That’s fair. However, how are limited strikes supposed to handle those goals?
James E. Powell
I’m against it for a combination or merging of the reasons cited by ruemara & Chief, above. No threat to the US beforehand and no conceivable good to the people of the US afterward. It should be really hard to get a free people to commit to war, but for some reason it isn’t.
I learned a couple things this week. First, if you want to see Republicans who are anti-war or properly skeptical military adventures, you need only elect a Democratic president. Second, Americans do not care what non-Euro dictators do to their own populations.
Baud
@Omnes Omnibus:
Why is it implausible that Assad might conclude that using chemical isn’t worth the trouble, given everything else going on in Syria?
? Martin
@ruemara:
I think this is too simple. It may solve some things. Syria definitely has functioning chemical weapons plants, and those could be destroyed before they can be taken over by Hezbollah or Al-Nusra. If that is all that happens, that would solve a problem. It may also create new problems.
But that’s going to be true for any act here. If we do nothing, it won’t solve anything either and it may create new problems. It’s already creating problems because the anti-interventionists are referencing those problems – 100,000 already dead, 2 million already displaced from the ‘why didn’t we act sooner’ line of arguing without noting that the people raising the argument would have opposed intervention earlier as well as well as the ‘we did nothing when Saddam used chemical weapons’ again without noting that they opposed intervention then as well.
But on a much broader canvas is the common goals aspect of the UN, which is right now completely broken. There’s lip service paid to war crimes like using chemical weapons, but when the UN is called on to act, states like Russia and China block, others hide behind excuses like Bush’s lies to the UN in 2003, and so on. This is not an issue that Russia really seeks to avoid – but they’re willing to put either their loyalty toward Syria or their opposition to the US ahead of that common goal. And we’re never going to get onto that set of common goals and onto a more functional UN without someone stepping forward.
Now, lobbing ordinance I will fully agree is the wrong way to start that. I’m intensely disappointed that there isn’t a huge humanitarian assistance going along with this. The prospect of tens of thousands of UN relief workers (along with security provided by various states) sitting right along all of Syria’s borders would be every bit as troubling to Assad as blowing up several of his military facilities.
So, I agree with Obama’s notion of ‘something must be done’. I would prefer that someone, somewhere offer an alternative to bombs, but not one agent has that I can see – nobody in congress, nobody in the UN.
Mnemosyne
@John Cole:
Dude. It was ON THE FRONT PAGE. Did you post it in a blackout or something?
Odie Hugh Manatee
@magurakurin:
BINGO.
By doing nothing, something bad will happen. By doing something, something bad will happen. It’s lose-lose no matter how you slice it. I’m conflicted on what to do (or not) but I’m leaning towards something being done if possible. Yes, war kills indiscriminately but ignoring the use of chemical agents on people is something we should not do.
Of course, if America hadn’t gone around the world pissing off people in places like Syria then this would be a whole different story.
Omnes Omnibus
@Baud: Actually, what might be a best result from this is tightening the pressure on Assad and then offering him and his an escape hatch and asylum in some overthrown tyrant model villa somewhere. Then UN forces go in and clean out the weapons.
magurakurin
@John Cole: whatever, man. There is enough fighting going on in the world. If you don’t think your attitude towards the President and the others involved has been snide and if you don’t feel that your comments have implied that it’s just another war for war’s sake based on lies, that’s how you feel. I’m just telling you how your postings have made me feel about your opinion. Maybe I’m a bad reader, or maybe your comments aren’t conveying the message you want them to. Either way, I’m actually on your side, the US shouldn’t do this even if we seemed to have come to that point by different roads.
The Dangerman
Call me when this passes the House (read: I don’t think it will).
Scotty
So when does “Team America 2: Syrian Adventure Fun Time” come out? America, Fuck Yeah!!!
negative 1
@gussie: By blowing stuff up that wouldn’t be blowing up had he not used chemical weapons. How does jailing one man for theft prevent another from stealing? It doesn’t. However with no consequences there may as well be no law, or in this case no Geneva Convention.
Baud
@Omnes Omnibus:
It would be nice if someone blinks before things get nasty. I think part of the calculus is getting Russia to believe it’s not worth the trouble and getting them to put pressure on Assad.
Baud
@Baud:
Meant nastier.
Just Some Fuckhead, Thought Leader
I guess John Cole thinks he can be a better President than Barack Obama. Go for it, John Cole. Show us how it’s done.
gussie
@negative 1: Okay, let’s assume Assad cares if shit gets blown up (which I’m not sure is a safe assumption). We blow stuff up. He uses chemical weapons again. What do we do the next time?
James E. Powell
@Omnes Omnibus:
Nevertheless, the international community should be looking for ways to punish Assad and his cronies – personally.
Can you tell us who or what this “international community” is? Is that like the “civilized nations” that Schlemizel referred to above? Do we need to review who some of those nations were?
Omnes Omnibus
@Baud: And I am sure that talks with Russia are ongoing. Words like Sochi might even be mentioned.
Just Some Fuckhead, Thought Leader
Sorry, I commented before I saw this.
Keith G
Shit, Cole, some of us have been seriously thinking and typing about this for several days. Do you really just want us to rehash what we have been “saying” at least three of four times before in the last few days?
Not much added value in that.
raven
@magurakurin: Bad reader?
So we pulled our head out of our asses, that shit flew for about a day.
debbie
I’m tired of the world saying, “next time” whenever atrocities like chemical warfare are found out. Either put up or shut up about being evolved and exceptional.
Omnes Omnibus
@James E. Powell: How about the UN? The Arab League? The EU? Etc?
Belafon
Are you assuming that Doctors without Borders is making up evidence?
ETA: Also, as far as public opinion goes, I don’t think people are paying a lot of close attention. That’s what they elected the Representatives for. I suspect support will jump significantly if the resolution passes. “If Congress supported it, it must be the right thing to do.” I’m not sure how high, and it might not even make it up to 50%, but it will rise.
geg6
I don’t have an argument either way (or maybe I have both, whatever). I am not a pacifist but usually prefer non-violent means of international persuasion. I was against the Iraq War from the minute I first heard rumblings and even predicted an attack on Iraq in the aftermath of 9/11. I marched against it and was driven half crazy by it, losing friends along the way. However, there are some situations that require a military response and I’m not fully persuaded that this isn’t one of them, especially if it is a very limited and targeted response. The whole convention against the use of chemical weapons is important due to the vast and long term damage they cause. I was outraged that the US backed Saddam when he gassed his own people and thought we should have cut ties with him completely. I’d rather Iran had won that war than that the US would prop up such a war criminal. So I can’t quite brush off a large scale (and by some reports, multiple) chemical attacks by Assad. I’m finding it a terrible dilemma and feel for the president, his cabinet and foreign policy team, and even congress. It’s a tough decision.
John Cole
@Mnemosyne: That was a comparison to Iraq?
Janet
That’s why you aren’t part of the GREAT generation.
agorabum
Obama said that Assad’s Syria used chemical weapons and should be punished somehow with airstrikes. Not regime change, just punishment.
The Senate bill says it’s ok to punish (in 1 and 2). And grants the ability for future bombing if Assad says “screw it, let’s get out the gas, boys, and go for broke.”
Will it work? Well, I don’t think Assad is looking forward to getting bombed by the US. He’s had two years to commit atrocities bomb free. If he gets hit hard, but for a short duration (say 1-2 days and its over), is he more likely to say “let’s get out the gas” or will he issue orders for all his generals to stay away from the gas and do it the old fashioned way?
I think it’s interesting that the rest of the world is saying that perhaps this was an accident, an overzealous colonel or some such. And if Assad had clearly ordered mass gassings, hey, they’d join in on the attack. But it’s not really clear… If the US does nothing and Assad gasses again, will the rest of the world come around?
But this is also about R2P – responsibility to protect. It’s not about regime change or any of that; it’s saying “you just used poison gas to kill more than a thousand people hiding in their homes, in their basements, in shelters. We won’t just shrug that off.” And it was an atrocity that happened in real time – it’s not like it happened 20 years ago and we’re using it as an excuse for an invasion.
Jeremy
The question I have for people who are opposed to air strikes. Did you complain when Clinton ordered airstrikes in Iraq, Bosnia, Sudan ? Did you complain when Reagan ordered an air strike against Libya for terrorist attacks ?
I can understand opposing a strike but too many people have compared this to Iraq when they should be comparing it to military strikes that have been ordered by many previous presidents. I never heard much outrage when Clinton ordered airstrikes and he didn’t even ask Congress for permission.
JCJ
I am opposed to getting involved in Syria. I was also opposed to getting involved in Libya and felt very firmly about that until I saw a lady whose daughter was good friends with my daughter. I knew my daughter’s friend had gone to school for a year in Libya a few years earlier staying with her grandparents, but I did not know where. The US had just gotten involved in Libya and this lady was so grateful as she was convinced her husband’s entire family would have been in peril without the intervention which prevented Gadaffi’s forces from reaching their town. Likewise, I have two colleagues from Syria who are strongly opposed to Assad but have few family members still in that country so they don’t have the same fears as the previous lady had. I still come down against US involvement, but I am somewhat squishy.
One argument I have heard about Assad is similar to one for Saddam – he gassed his own people. I do not know if this is true in Syria, but I know it was not true in Iraq. Saddam was a Sunni Arab, his forces used poison gas on Kurds. Assad is Alawite, I don’t know if the victims were also. I don’t believe Saddam considered Kurds “his people.” If the argument is that they were living in Iraq and were thus “his people” then I would argue that George Washington and Thomas Jefferson enslaved their own people since both owned slaves.
raven
@agorabum: Pat Lang has lot’s of folks saying it was the rebels that launched the gas. Use the easy peasy link here to bop right over and check him out.
MattF
What’s the choice? Standing aside at a massacre vs. acting, but in an ineffective way? I suppose a cruise missile is a symbol of something… ‘We care, at a million bucks a shot, no less.’
raven
@Jeremy: If you mention Libya you are an idiot.
Dave
Unfortunately, it seems as if those who were against the Iraq invasion can’t help but see the world through Baghdad-colored lenses now, and those who were for the invasion are moving at top speed to “make amends” for their previous error.
For the non-interventionists, should there be a prohibition against the use of chemical weapons in the 21st century? If so, how should it be enforced?
joes527
@Omnes Omnibus:
Aaaaaaaaaaaannd that is where you went off the rails.
There is a difference between not giving a shit and recognizing what we are capable of achieving, and at what cost.
Or, to reference the earlier thread, would you say that Obama not prosecuting the war criminals in the previous administration could be appropriately characterized as “not giving a shit?”
raven
@Dave: Maybe we should have enforced it when Putin used it in the Moscow movie theater.
Just Some Fuckhead, Thought Leader
@agorabum:
So we kill a thousand more people that may or may not have had anything to do with the gas attacks. Brilliant!
Mnemosyne
@John Cole:
Well, gosh, let’s just follow your link on “from a marketing point of view, you never introduce a new product in August.” What pops up when we follow the link that you put in your very own post?
TRACES OF TERROR: THE STRATEGY; Bush Aides Set Strategy to Sell Policy on Iraq
Oh, but those of us who thought you were making comparisons to Iraq were just fucking IMAGINING IT!
At least own your own fucking bullshit, you fucking coward. Don’t throw that shit out there and then run away pretending you didn’t say it. It’s fucking juvenile.
mclaren
Well, you just killed this thread, Cole.
Omnes Omnibus
@John Cole: How about the references to aluminum tubes and incubators in this post?
Look, you’ve said in the past that you have more or less decided to be reflexively against any and all military actions that don’t involve the US being invaded (paraphrasing here). This means, of course, that you are going to be okay with all sorts of terrible things happening as long as the US isn’t involved. Not everyone views the international community that way. This is a situation where it is pretty clear that the Assad regime used chemical weapons. I happen to think that this is unacceptable. I think that it provides a just cause for military action. I don’t, however, see a military action that has sufficient probability of a positive outcome to justify action right now.
James E. Powell
@Omnes Omnibus:
I see where the Arab League is asking the UN and what appears to be this very same vaguely defined international community to “take action” against Assad and his regime. So we know that the Arab League is not going to do anything.
Can the UN act in such cases? Not as long as at least one security council member is a supporter of the outlaw nation.
Will any “action” other than removing Assad and his cohort be of any long term benefit? Does the “international community” support such things?
It seems to me that getting people together to consider and answer those questions is more important than the US military forces taking action. It isn’t like there is an on-going emergency situation (cf. Rwanda genocide). We have the time to think and talk and smoke on this matter. And to attempt to include more nations in the process. China & India, for example.
mclaren
@Mnemosyne:
Blah blah, yadda yadda, change the record, troll.
dollared
@Omnes Omnibus: I think the only motivation that passes muster is punishment for chemical weapons. Soooooooooooo…..I actually would not oppose an airstrike or two IF AND ONLY IF either the UN or the Arab League authorizes the US.
And then I would have only three categories of targets: 1) valuable military facilities – I think, for example, that denying him all his MiGs and Mirages would be expensive and annoying to him. 2) chemical weapons plants; and 3) any residence with a swimming pool.
Category 3 is crude and cruel. But it would actually do the most damage, because it’s Layer 2 and Layer 3 that authorize and command all the killing.
eemom
@Mnemosyne:
You GO, girl.
@mclaren:
Hit the medicine cabinet again, headcase.
chopper
who’s this ‘you all’? seems like most all of us are against a bombing too.
Mnemosyne
@mclaren:
… says the queen of posting links without bothering to read them.
Constance
I agree with you, John, that we would get more bang for the buck helping refugees. I can’t see any win for the US in a military action. The manufacturers of munitions will be the only winners and who knows? Maybe that’s the fucking point.
Roger Moore
@John Cole:
You mean other than the part where you talk about aluminum tubes and babies thrown out of incubators?
Belafon
@raven: I had no clue who Pat Lang was, so I looked him up. I thought this was a funny section in his wikipedia page:
Botsplainer
If you destroy the plants where the shit is made, he can’t make more. If you destroy the emplacements where the agents are installed on shells, then his ability to use them is degraded. If you destroy the bases where his helicopters are maintained and refueled to observe and direct fire, he shoots blind. If you destroy artillery pieces which he uses to launch them, he can launch fewer.
All of it degrades his ability to war using chemical weapons.
I'mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet
@gussie: I think part of what is causing people to talk past each other on the topic of military action in Syria is having different understanding of terms like “limited”. I take “limited” to mean the opposite of “unlimited” in this case.
We are not going to “total war” against Syria. But, we’re not going to drop some firecrackers on Mount Mezzeh, either. Obama has been pretty clear – it seems to me:
I expect, but do not know, that if Obama orders a strike, then it will be severe as viewed from Assad’s perspective. For example, I expect many military airfields in Syria is likely to end up looking worse than Yassir Arafat International. The US military can break a lot of stuff in 60 (or 90) days. Loss of air superiority would certainly “degrade” Assad’s ability to carry out future CW attacks, change the dynamics of the battle, and make Assad (and those under him) think hard about running away to exile somewhere…
I think Obama is right to press the international community to respond to the sarin attack. I think that, if there is no alternative, that Obama will be right to carry out the operation without a large international consensus. Perhaps Putin (and Li) will blink during the G20 meeting and agree for a UN process in exchange for Obama delaying or canceling the attack. The UN stepping up and doing its job would be something that I’m sure Obama would prefer, as would most of us, I think.
FWIW.
Cheers,
Scott.
Neutron Flux
@Omnes Omnibus: So, after writing your 20 page decision, you are against it. This is a binary thing. No need for all the equivocation. Just yes or no.
dollared
@Constance: The problem with helping refugees is “how?” We can’t put any gringos on the ground there, we can’t stage from Israel, we can’t use Iraq, etc., etc.
We can write a big check, but really – we have to write checks because the Saudis and Gulf States are out of money?
I love love love the idea, but practically speaking, we can’t help.
magurakurin
@John Cole:
from the link in the post
If a comparison to Iraq wasn’t your intention, that was a weird way of doing it. I’m obviously not alone in my perceptions. This just isn’t a good time for snark. Mistermix got called out on it, and to a large extent his posts have changed tone. In fact his post yesterday with a link to Oxfam was the best thing anyone has done to date. It made me realize that I should do a little bit and send even a token amount of money. More reminders like that would be a good thing, in my opinion.
JPL
What does The Steve say? My opinion is that chemical weapon usage should be punished, maybe. It’s a civil war that has already killed ten of thousands and why should I be concerned about an extra fourteen hundred? In other words, I have no fucking idea.
kc
@schrodinger’s cat:
Maybe because Iraq worked out so well?
Omnes Omnibus
@Neutron Flux: No, it is not a binary thing. It’s a fucking complicated thing.
Cassidy
@Mnemosyne: Don’t get too worked up. Soon, more scotch will be consumed followed by a post with YouTube videos and a story about a cat or dog taking a dump. This post will be forgotten, requested comments ignored, and the blog will once gain be outsourced to emoprogs and the pet clown.
James E. Powell
@Omnes Omnibus:
I think that it provides a just cause for military action. I don’t, however, see a military action that has sufficient probability of a positive outcome to justify action right now.
Ominbus, J. concurring in part, dissenting in part.
Belafon
@dollared: Maybe we could take over some Middle Eastern country. Maybe one where the leader has done the kinds of things that indicate he should not be leader. Like a leader that would gas his own people. It would at least solve the refugee problem.
chopper
@dollared:
the us has given about a billion in aid to help syria during the civil war. i’m not saying it’s enough, but clearly helping refugees is possible. considering many of them are in places like jordan, it’s certainly doable.
Jeremy
@raven: LOL ! Well I had to bring it up. It seems like some are making a good argument against a military strike while others are trying to argue that this is like Operation Iraqi Freedom. I don’t remember many people complaining about Clinton or Reagan ordering air strikes, but now we hear this huge uproar.
Omnes Omnibus
@James E. Powell: If you want to be flippant about it.
kc
@kc:
Sorry, that was my usual bullshit. I apologize.
Botsplainer
One other thing to add to my list of degraded ability to chemical war – Syria is not opaque to American intelligence. There are long lists of folks sharing info with what is where.
Fluke bucket
Obama does not want war. So he says he wants war. And for the first time in the history of the world the world suddenly does not want war. 11th dimensional chess people. It is as clear as a bell.
Roger Moore
@JPL:
Best guess: demand for more tuna and belly rubs.
Neutron Flux
@Omnes Omnibus: You are making it a complicated thing. Yes or no. For or against. It is complicated, but where you come down on it is not. I get your angst, but none of us are the decision maker so all that matters is your opinion. At the end of the day, your opinion doesn’t really matter that much.
Mnemosyne
@Neutron Flux:
For or against what? Unilateral action by the US? Action by the UN? Action by an international organization other than the UN, such as NATO or the Arab League?
What is the question that you want a simple “yes or no” answer to?
fuzz
This isn’t a ground breaking comment, but the discussion is mostly because of how awful the rebels have looked the past year or so. In court today people were talking about the rebel who was recorded eating a dead person’s liver, and these are people who normally don’t follow the news much at all.
The AQ influence pushed people over the top. There’s already a fear of Arab Sunnis among most Americans, and the fact that the rebels have been putting out videos of themselves publicly executing protesters in Raqqa, beheading a priest and cannibalizing a dead soldier (along with a really well done propaganda campaign by Assad to appear ‘secular’ and friendly to Christians) has doomed them. If the rebels were like the Kurds in northern Syria; secular, co-ed infantry units, no Takbirs and Allah Akbars, I think more people would be in favor. The rebels have lost the PR/information war decisively and it’s really hurting them.
Omnes Omnibus
@Neutron Flux: Okay, I was for Kosovo,against Iraq, for Libya, and now against Syria. Am I flipping a coin? Alternating?
Cole asked for reasoning. I offered mine; if you find it too long or boring, you are welcome to skip it.
ETA: Are you new to the internet?
Morbo
The cat, once burned by the hot stove, will choose to avoid it when it is cold as well.
Msskwesq
@Omnes Omnibus: I agree with you both. We cannot allow chemical weapons to become acceptable ever. No matter what. I had a close friend (Iranian) from law school who was blinded by chemical weapons in the Iran-Iraq war as a small child. Many members of her family died. She died of cancer as a young women a few years ago, her successful legal career cut short. She left two small kids. The doctors concluded it was the chemicals that ultimately gave her cancer. Listening to her and her few surviving family tell the tale of horror from that gas attack convinces me we must act. I believe it will be a surgical strike without boots on the ground. My brother in law was in military intelligence for many years and he and I really talked this out the othwr day. I hate war and was dead set against the Iraq war, protesting in the streets. But seeing the bodies of dead gassed Syrian babies is just too damn much. I’m sure I will get flamed for this opinion but so be it.
jamick6000
@Cassidy: you sound a bit emo yourself.
Chief
@areallygoodhandle: This comment is WAY out of line.
Schlemizel
@gussie:
It would damage his military & weaken him in his current fight. We could attack his missile and aircraft facilities as well as arms caches, both conventional and chemical. Is it Ideal? No but compared to the alternative it might be better
James E. Powell
@Omnes Omnibus:
I apologize if that offends you, but being serious isn’t going to change anything either.
We get nowhere chastising each other over this.
chopper
@Neutron Flux:
then why do you give so much of a shit about the format of the opinion?
Schlemizel
@James E. Powell:
My use of “civilized nations” was semi-sarcastic. Really though large nations with decent military forces have a lot less to lose. Its the small nations, particularly those with nuts neighbors or long-term enemies nearby that should be the most on board
Keith G
Ok Cole, you asked so here is a combo platter of older stuff with a few recent reflections. I am not sure it’s a best argument as much as it’s a ongoing attempt to find light in a very dark room.
A few threads ago, I noted how many people were seeming to imply that there is a clear duality present in the ongoing issue with Syria. There isn’t. I do believe that Obama has reasoned that the consequence of doing nothing (or little) are just too dangerous. Obama has never been a dove and he has been in these and similar 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 Obama’s default position would be “no attack” but a sober view of the first order, second order and third order consequences of various possible US behaviors have nudged him into the “launch an attack” position.
For the purposes of above, first order consequences are those things happening in Syria. Second order consequences would be what spills over to the contiguous neighbors of Syria. And third order consequences would be changes happening to the strategic alliances that touch the area.
You see, as bad as it is that Syrian kids are being slaughtered by these war crimes (and it is so hideous), it’s only partially about them, or about other dead Syrians in any quantity. I get the sense that there is a greater concern than just the horrific deaths of innocents by once and future gas attacks. An al Asad led war on the Sunni population of Syria is bad enough and has significant strategic implications for the entire levant and north to Turkey. Add to that the increasing use of neurotoxin gas as an offensive weapon, and instability gets stacked upon instability. One third of the Syrian population are now refugees.
I am willing to imagine that there are those in Obama’s NSC who do’t give a fuck about Syria or Syrians, but they do give a very big fuck about the stability of Jordan. For good or ill, they are trying to find some cap to the upward spiral of violence.
The increasing refugee problem alone is an issue that can destabilize friendly governments. And feeding them is nice, but Jordan sure the hell does not want them setting down roots. They want them gone yesterday. They went down that path in 1971 – The youngsters here might want to look up Black September.
There is so much shit in this sandwich.
FWIW, I feel Obama was heading down the right path prior to the weekend. He decided that an attack was appropriate, Constitutionally permissible, and was gearing up to deliver. The delay for Congress is making a bad and murky situation more so on both counts. The delay is, hour by hour, decaying the effectiveness of such a strike as a way to wound Asad’s forces, bit I think that doing nothing might well be the worst option if there is some indication that nerve agents will continue to be used.
Some of you seem to be wishing for clear cut either/ors. There is no fucking way we or anyone know how this is going to play out. But there are a lot of ways it can get really worse, and I am thinking the the Obama team believes that they have a chance to slow the shit storm down at least a bit. – and maybe sidestep a quick path the a greater war in the Eastern Med.
And as much as I have been on Obama’s dick about a range of issues, I do think his conclusions are sound even if (as usual for him) his implementation is a bit iffy. But he has just put his Presidency on the line for what I think is a worthy cause. Props for that.
jamick6000
@Neutron Flux: there is a certain kind of “liberal” pseudo intellectual who needs to wring his hands and mutter “complexity” when discussing any issue.
Cassidy
@jamick6000: Nah. Amused and bored. I have the rest of a 24 hour shift to kill. Taking a step back from this place and just observing has allowed me to see how stupidly predictable this place is.
rp
saying “I’m not trolling now” appears to be a concession that he was trolling before.
Bob In Portland
I am against it because bombing won’t make things better, the rebels are worse than Assad, and the proof that Assad did it is manufactured. Lisa Pease at Consortium news.
For those who think that something must be done, how about we let the UN sort it out?
Now that we seem to agree on Syria, John, what’s your opinion on Jameson’s?
jamick6000
I think we need to keep fighting Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, but also give them a hand in Syria.
Neutron Flux
@Omnes Omnibus: I read every comment you make. For the most part I find you comments insightful and well thought out. I don’t understand how you thought about previous things like this matter. I assume you are a smart guy and evolve in your thoughts. It just seems to me you are making this a legal brief and I would like to hear from you considering your military perspective, regardless of your legal perspective.
mclaren
@Mnemosyne:
Proof or stand revealed as a liar spouting bullshit.
jamick6000
@Cassidy: the internet is pretty dumb.
J.D. Rhoades
@gussie:
The idea, as I understand it, is that Assad will decide, “fuck it, using chemical weapons is not worth this” and return to slaughtering his people the old fashioned way.
Will he? Who the fuck knows?
Rex Everything
@Bob In Portland:
I agree completely. The idea that the America is the world’s policeman is alarmingly deeply ingrained.
Neutron Flux
@Mnemosyne: Bomb or not bomb. Act of war, or help the refugees,
mclaren
@Neutron Flux:
Omnes Omnibus is the guy who explained to us how Obama had the legal right to order the murder of U.S. citizens without a trial or even accusing them of a crime.
“Insightful,” eh?
Wow. Just…wow.
J.D. Rhoades
@LanceThruster:
I think I’m going to go dig that DVD out of the closet and watch it again. After Luther, of course.
CaseyL
If the Geneva Conventions are tossed in the trash as not worth the effort to uphold, then we’re back in pre-WWI territory in terms of what sovereign nations can do to one another and to their own citizens. I seriously don’t want to see that happen.
It comes down to whether we trust Obama’s judgment, and the judgment of the people he’s relying on. I know that sounds Pollyanna-ish, but for me it just comes down to that. Obama isn’t Bush; Kerry isn’t Powell, and Hagel isn’t Rumsfeld.
These are people whose judgment, intelligence, and basic morality I trust.
So I will trust them in this.
I’m not real happy about it. The situation in Syria is another one where there aren’t any good choices. But retaliating against Assad for using chemical weapons may the best of the bad.
Omnes Omnibus
@Neutron Flux: Actually, I have always tended toward being a just war theory person. If those tenets are satisfied, I will tend to support the war. If not, then no.
Omnes Omnibus
@mclaren:
Mnemosyne
@mclaren:
Sweetie, I don’t have time to track down the multiple examples. The one I remember off the top of my head was when you posted a link to an editorial at the Kaiser Family Foundation claiming that it proved that universal health insurance wasn’t working in Massachusetts without bothering to mention that (a) it was an editorial and (b) it was written by the head of a libertarian organization that wanted to get rid of nonprofit healthcare.
That was probably one of your greatest hits.
Neutron Flux
@mclaren: “For the most part”… get it?
Omnes Omnibus
@Mnemosyne: Citing employment law cases to argue a point about criminal law was another.
Bobby Thomson
I’m agin it because the planned strikes are illegal and we need international action. Your reasons for opposing it are the wrong reasons. Responding to them as I’ve numbered them:
(3) That’s why they aren’t decapitating strikes. Better the devil we know, or at least the one that didn’t kill Americans on American soil.
(1) I don’t think that really bothers the SFRC all that much, or at least not Walnuts, because if that happens, it will add to international condemnation and put additional pressure on Russia and the PRC. Sucks to be the martyrs if it does happen.
(2) Fuck you. Medecins sans frontieres ain’t Ahmed Chalabi and NRO, and by the way, glass houses much, guy who voted for Junior Bush twice?
Mnemosyne
@Neutron Flux:
Bomb or not bomb by whom?
I take it from your comments that you’re completely against any military intervention whatsoever, even by the UN or Arab League, and the only position the world should take is humanitarian aid. Yes or no?
Comrade Dread
They’re not. This AUMF like the last AUMF Congress passed leaves the door wide open for a range of actions that the President could take including ground troops which is admittedly unlikely, but then again, I didn’t think the last AUMF covered half the stuff that we ended up doing.
.
Then we should let those civilized nations get together and decide what they’re going to do about someone violating international law and the ‘acceptable’ rules by which heads of state get to kill their citizens.
James E. Powell
@Keith G:
The delay for Congress is making a bad and murky situation more so on both counts. The delay is, hour by hour, decaying the effectiveness of such a strike as a way to wound Asad’s forces
I disagree. The delay to get congress to agree is totally worth it, even essential. And the delay will not hamper or reduce the effectiveness of punitive US military actions. They have awesome powers of destruction.
Bobby Thomson
@John Cole:
You’re the one who brought up incubators and aluminum tubes. Was that supposed to evoke the Martian invasion?
Comrade Scrutinizer
@Omnes Omnibus: Except that Syria never signed nor ratified the Chemical Warfare Convention, so the legality of acting against Syria wrt that treaty is questionable. If military action is to be taken against Syria, it should be international in scope, and should involve approval by the UN Security Council or the UNGA.
The US has no business taking unilateral military action against Syria. The internal use of chemical weapons is not an existential threat to the US, nor is it an immediate threat to the national security of the US.
The US should take some action, but it should focus on relief efforts, and should also involve international diplomatic efforts to isolate and punish Assad. Military solutions are a hammer, and the situation in Syria is not a nail.
fuzz
@CaseyL:
I agree with this. It’s weird to see liberals, who normally are the first people to cite international laws and norms, watch someone blatantly break all of them and yet not feel the least bit compelled to do anything. If there’s no enforcement then don’t bother having them.
People keep mentioning the consequences of bombing, but not doing anything also has consequences. This time it was a thousand people in East Ghouta, next time it could be thousands more in Raqqa, rural Aleppo, Idlib or any of the numerous other areas where Assad has no control or where his army is besieged.
Neutron Flux
@Omnes Omnibus: I see.
SatanicPanic
We know what happens if we don’t bomb Syria- Assad uses chemical weapons. We don’t know what happens if we DO bomb him. Inaction has the higher cost in human suffering. If you’re cool with that, fine, but I’m not.
Omnes Omnibus
@mclaren:
FWIW, my argument was more that a US citizen who is performing an active role oversea in Al Qaida shouldn’t be treated any differently than a Saudi, Kuwaiti, or French citizen who is doing the same thing.
mclaren
@Mnemosyne:
Thanks for confirming that you have no evidence.
That link was to the Kaiser Foundation, hardly a libertarian foundation. Try again, troll.
Neutron Flux
@fuzz: The domino theory, revisited.
Just Some Fuckhead, Thought Leader
@CaseyL:
Are you talking about these Geneva Conventions or another set that apply to other people?
LT
Oh man, I got earthquake-level hate-ons at DKos for using the babies and incubators as an analogy. “How dare you mock dead children?!?!?!?”
Umwut?
I’m sure you’ll do better. /goes to read thread…
Felonius Monk
Will we as a country be doing this shit forever? (via):
This apparently occurred prior to the CW attack. The Jerusalem Post has a more complete discussion.
I’m sure this will go well.
Mnemosyne
@Comrade Scrutinizer:
If that’s the case, than the Allies had no case against Japan and should not have been allowed to hold war crimes trials because the Japanese never signed the Geneva Conventions, so the Bataan Death March was totally legal.
I think most of us here agree with that. I think I’ve seen maybe one person in the comments say they’re in favor of unilateral action by the US. And yet those of us who support international action keep having people in comments demand to know why we want to kill Syrian babies with the US war machine.
Gopher2b
I’m against it but the argument seems pretty simple to me. We tell the world we will go in, but we’re not going alone. We think Assad using chemical weapons is a terrible crime against humanity, and justice should be served, but we’re not serving it alone. So, if he uses it again, it’s on them, not us. We’ve stated our position.
We’ve actually been given a gift here. Instead of saying Assad was justified, both Russia and Iran have taken the position it wasn’t Assad. Most people seems to have taken the position that this is ridiculous. Why not start the diplomatic process of embarrassing Russia and Iran over their ridiculous positions. Let’s have the UN investigate who delivered the weapons, and every time Russia thwarts the investigation, let’s call them out on it. It would be nice to throw some punches their way for once.
fuzz
@Neutron Flux:
I don’t think it’s like the domino theory because there’s a clear pattern of escalation by Assad. Each time the rebels have the ‘upped the ante’ so has he. When they used small arms, he used tanks and artillery, when they started knocking out his tanks he used air power, and now that they’re starting to hit back against air power he used chemicals. The domino theory was entirely speculative, with what’s going on now there’s at least a pattern that indicates what Assad’s frame of mind is. He’s met every counter move by the rebels with an escalation and this was the latest.
Mnemosyne
@mclaren:
The link was to the Kaiser Foundation. The editorial was by someone who was not associated with the Kaiser Foundation. That’s what made your claim bullshit — you said that the Kaiser Foundation proved something when the only thing your link “proved” was that Kaiser sometimes runs opinion pieces by people who disagree with them.
LT
I don’t mind having the chemical weapons “red line” – because it’s at least a line. We need more, not less lines.
But the response, whatever it is, has to be *international*. That’s where the red line was born, just to note.
And we do not know exactly what happened yet. It is just crazy that Obama allegedly almost already responded militarily, and still crazy that he went to Congress to get authorization for a military response – for something we don’t know the details of. That is just nuts.
Jeremy
@Felonius Monk: Well those rebels were vetted so they aren’t giving assistance to radical- AQ rebels. The president has been reluctant to do anything besides non lethal aid but I guess they were able to change course.
Just Some Fuckhead, Thought Leader
@Gopher2b:
Why?
piratedan
@Mnemosyne: you can’t just prove him wrong once, you have to prove him wrong every single time or else you’re acquiescing to the possibility that he could be operating in stopped clock mode…. just sayin’
Keith G
@James E. Powell:
Those awesome powers of destruction. as you describe them may be part of the problem as…
Firing powerful armaments at an artillery battery located in a residential neighborhood would cause a few issues.
Gravenstone
@Chief: This is another nym for a resident troll (who gets serially banned). Ignore it and move on, you’ll be much happier.
Gopher2b
@Just Some Fuckhead, Thought Leader:
Because they’re providing cover for a mass murderer? They take every chance they can to poke the US in the eye? Putin is the scariest person on the planet?
Neutron Flux
@fuzz: I was replying to your comment. What you say here is completely different. What you say here is a summary of how war goes. Why would you expect Assad to do anything different? War is about winning. History usually forgives the winners.
eemom
@Rex Everything:
I agree with you again.
And it’s selective as shit law enforcement, also too. I realize that point carries no weight around here, but it does imo.
Bobby Thomson
@Neutron Flux:
Could you at least be consistent in your reflexive anti-intellectual grunting?
Van
@gussie: Limited strikes could work because Assad is scared. He’s probably more scared of losing power to the rebels, but he also probably doesn’t want to piss us off. He must have seen what happened to Quaddafi.
Roger Moore
@piratedan:
FWIW, mclaren is a her, not a him. Not that it invalidates your basic point, but it’s polite to use the correct pronoun even with somebody you disagree with.
Roger Moore
@Rex Everything:
The problem is that we’ve given up trying to be the world’s policeman. We’ve decided to be the world’s judge, jury, and executioner.
piratedan
@Roger Moore: ty, always looking to do it right, so I’ll file that away.
Jeremy
@LT: What more needs to be known ? We already know chemical weapons have been used a couple of times and even the German intelligence agency verified it. The question is who ordered it ?
Xecky Gilchrist
I’m opposed to military action there too, and agree that the money would be better spent helping refugees.
fuzz
@Neutron Flux:
You said the reasons for bombing Syria are similar to the reasons for getting deeply involved in Vietnam, or at least I thought you were when you brought up the domino theory. I don’t really think they’re the same. If anything I think the the anti-bombing argument is closer to the domino theory, saying that if the rebels win in Syria they’ll take over Jordan (or Iraq) next.
Neutron Flux
@Mnemosyne: The only action the US should take. I am sure where you are getting this “whole world” shit.
Bobby Thomson
@fuzz:
To which blatantly illegal act are you referring? Because the planned strikes violate the U.N. Charter.
mclaren
@Omnes Omnibus:
Let’s unpack your multiple lies here. First, the “active role overseas in Al Qaida” was that Anwar Al-Awlaki gave speeches. First amendment protects that behavior. Ann Coulter has proposed murdering Supreme Court justices — why hasn’t Obama ordered her murdered with a drone? You know why. Because the first amendment protects that kind of trash-talking. Al-Awlaki made speeches saying that if America continued to bomb Islamic countries, then terrorists would eventually retaliate. By the way, I’ve been saying the same thing. Should Obama order my assassination?
The second lie you’ve told is that an American citizen “shouldn’t be treated any differently than a Saudi, Kuwaiti, or French citizen who is doing the same thing.” Let’s cite the fifth amendment:
What part of “shall not be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime unless on presentment or indictment of a grand jury” did you not understand?
negative 1
@gussie: By my logic blow more stuff up. Hopefully next time the factory that is manufacturing them, but if not you do it until he stops. My tone is flippant, but in real life I’m not. But maybe the next horrific tyrant abides by the tenets of the Geneva Convention because he doesn’t want his forces weakened. I accept that the world can be a bad place, and there is no end under my logic. I also submit Assad wont stop if we don’t stop him.
ralphb
Syria became party to the Geneva Convention of 1925, as of 1958, so Assad broke treaty obligations.
“Never Again” is apparently meaningless these days.
fuzz
@Bobby Thomson:
Gassing people. The UN will never let anything happen because of Russia and China. If you have powerful friends I guess you can gas away.
Omnes Omnibus
@mclaren: Would US forces have been in the wrong for killing Martin Monti during WWII?
Neutron Flux
@Bobby Thomson:
Should not have included that last sentence. But, ‘reflexive anti-intellectual grunting’? Seriously?
JustRuss
A couple observations. The last time chemical weapons were used, by Iraq vs. Iran:
1. The US damn well knew about it
2. We blocked any sanctions or repercussions in the UN
3. Despite the fact that Sadam got away with it, there wasn’t an outbreak of chemical weapons attacks across the globe.
We lost the moral high ground on this long ago, and “surgical strikes” aren’t going to do squat except cause collateral damage and piss people off. If we really want to do something, we should work with the international community to outlaw the production of chemical weapons. Won’t help Syria, but after years of drought and famine they’re pretty much screwed anyway. Tossing a few Tomahawks at Assad isn’t going to help.
Bill E Pilgrim
John, my take is that a lot of your commenters are walking a razor’s edge, essentially believing that military action in Syria is a really bad idea, but rushing to condemn anyone who criticizes or implies any criticism of Barack Obama for pursuing military action in Syria.
If you can thread that needle, you’re home free.
Just Some Fuckhead, Thought Leader
@negative 1:
Do you mean we should target him for execution or that we should kill a bunch of other people who may or may not be involved in the gas attacks and hope he learns a lesson from their deaths?
Hawes
The problem with “helping the refugees” is:
A) Somalia
B) It won’t make a difference anyway. They are going to hate us whether we do the right thing by the “Arab Street” or the wrong thing. The shit they are saying in Egypt is laughable.
So, I’m on board with striking military targets to exact a cost for the use of WMD.
And if it’s a “quagmire” (like… Libya) I’ll ban myself.
Felonius Monk
@fuzz:
Get the complete article here.
Seems to me the only one committing an illegal act would be the U.S. if it attacks Syria.
Jeremy
I wonder why no one addresses the Clinton air strikes in the 90’s. The default position in this argument is bringing up Iraq War II but where was the outrage when Clinton ordered strikes on Bosnia, Iraq, and Sudan ?
The Pale Scot
Watching alternative media I have seen a coverage of Assad’s base, wealthy people dining in expensive restaurants in Damascus, in other words, Assad’s 1%, seems it would be more effective to whack them then some poor enlistee out in the einterland. But of course, god forbid anyone get the idea that the MOU suffer repercussions, I mean god forbid, a banker might go to jail.
mclaren
@Mnemosyne:
So you just admit you lied. Let’s unpack the rest of your argument: “The editorial was by someone who was not associated with the Kaiser Foundation. That’s what made your claim bullshit.” That makes no sense. According to that logic, whenever someone makes a link to the New York Times or the Washington Post or the Boston Globe, that’s bullshit too because the editorial is by someone not associated New York Times or the Washington Post or the Boston Globe.
Your argument is garbage because it automatically invalidates every link to every new source everywhere.
But of course you don’t care whether your argument is horseshit because your main purpose is simply to trash any link anyone makes that disagrees with your pervasively false claims.
joes527
@fuzz:
Such has always been the way. Just ask Saddam … errrm … maybe he shouldn’t have pissed off his powerful friends.
Neutron Flux
@fuzz:
This is the best summary of the domino theory that I have seen in many years.
Felonius Monk
@JustRuss:
Actually, there is some pretty strong evidence that the U.S. provided Saddam with targeting information for those attacks.
TG Chicago
@NCSteve:
What happened after Saddam used them 25 years ago? Not much.
The potential for blowback is far worse from action than inaction.
Rex Everything
@eemom:
& I agree with you, quoted below. Which one of us is the stopped clock?
I know—kind of answers all the hand wringing about “how, oh how, can we let these rules go unenforced?” doesn’t it. We didn’t enforce them in Operation Cast Lead (and yes, white phosphorus as used there is an incendiary weapon banned by the Geneva Conventions and UN conventional weapons protocol), so if lack of enforcement kills the rules then they’re dead already.
Belafon
@mclaren: Since we’re quoting sections of the constitution, I thought I’d throw this one up:
Constance
@dollared:
I assumed there are refugee camps already set up and now I realize I don’t have any idea if there are and how the US would give money to them if there are. And the US probably isn’t going to send large chunks of money to Oxfam and Doctors Without Borders. This is why I never entertained the idea of going into foreign policy work. I have a problem wrapping my head around the big picture no matter what it’s about.
fuzz
@Felonius Monk:
So you’re ok with him using them? You don’t think anything should be done?
Ted & Hellen
@Cassidy:
Someone’s butt hurts.
A lot.
Jeremy
@Bill E Pilgrim: No one has an issue with valid criticism but the over the top rhetoric about Obama and Kerry is ridiculous. The fact that some would call Obama a warmonger when the guy has avoided Syria for two years until the “red line” was crossed is ridiculous.
mclaren
@Omnes Omnibus:
You bet your ass. Ezra Pound broadcast propaganda for Mussolini. Should Americans have assassinated Ezra Pound?
Omnes Omnibus
@Felonius Monk: What about this one? The CWC is not the only international agreement on chemical weapons. The Geneva Protocol prohibits use of chemical weapons. Syria signed it.
Ted & Hellen
@Cassidy:
And yet here you are again, in this boring and predictable place, fatty.
Slacking off at work again, I see.
Phoenician in a time of Romans
September 1, 1939 (extract)
by W. H. Auden
I sit in one of the dives
On Fifty-second Street
Uncertain and afraid
As the clever hopes expire
Of a low dishonest decade:
Waves of anger and fear
Circulate over the bright
And darkened lands of the earth,
Obsessing our private lives;
The unmentionable odour of death
Offends the September night.
Accurate scholarship can
Unearth the whole offence
From Luther until now
That has driven a culture mad,
Find what occurred at Linz,
What huge imago made
A psychopathic god:
I and the public know
What all schoolchildren learn,
Those to whom evil is done
Do evil in return.
Exiled Thucydides knew
All that a speech can say
About Democracy,
And what dictators do,
The elderly rubbish they talk
To an apathetic grave;
Analysed all in his book,
The enlightenment driven away,
The habit-forming pain,
Mismanagement and grief:
We must suffer them all again.
Into this neutral air
Where blind skyscrapers use
Their full height to proclaim
The strength of Collective Man,
Each language pours its vain
Competitive excuse:
But who can live for long
In an euphoric dream;
Out of the mirror they stare,
Imperialism’s face
And the international wrong.
Faces along the bar
Cling to their average day:
The lights must never go out,
The music must always play,
All the conventions conspire
To make this fort assume
The furniture of home;
Lest we should see where we are,
Lost in a haunted wood,
Children afraid of the night
Who have never been happy or good.
[http://www.poets.org/viewmedia.php/prmMI/15545#sthash.eJRHG5YO.dpuf]
fuzz
@Neutron Flux:
I swear to God it’s always 1968 on this forum. You’re saying it’s like the domino theory but not saying whether it’s right or wrong. The chemical attacks have followed a pattern, the first in Saraqueb killed only a few people, one in Khan al Assal outside Aleppo a few months ago killed roughly 100, and now this killed hundreds more. There’s a clear pattern of escalation and nothing to suggest it will stop.
Mnemosyne
@Neutron Flux:
Okay. Thank you for clarifying.
Um, the UN weapons inspectors? Remember them? The ones who were just there last week?
Keith P
Seems like a simple answer (one of two): either the thinking is that we want to look like we’re doing *something* without actually having yet another full-blown ME war, or the idea is we draw Syria into attacking Israel so that we *can* have yet another full-blown war and look justified doing it. The thought that a bunch of Tomahawks will make the Syrians wet their pants into stopping is just foolishness, though.
Phoenician in a time of Romans
@Villago Delenda Est:
“The Rebels” are themselves often in conflict with one another. As in Libya, what holds them loosely together is their shared hatred of Assad.
No Assad, then what the fuck happens.
Look how well Afghanistan turned out after the Russians pulled out…
Rex Everything
@Bobby Thomson:
Wait … you’re not saying the United States violates int’l law?!?
Bobby Thomson
@Neutron Flux: I don’t know how else to characterize someone complaining, “enough with all that logical reasoning! Just say black or white!”
And you might want to study what the domino theory actually is.
Neutron Flux
@Mnemosyne: Who else is going in with us on this act of war? The whole world?
Jeremy
@fuzz: They don’t think anything should be done until Obama changes positions and does nothing. Just like the military crackdown in Egypt some on this blog were complaining about Obama not doing anything, and I guarantee that if he cut off aid they would have reversed their position.
I’m not a big fan of air strikes against Syria but I’m more reasonable.I find it hypocritical that many people in this country had no issue with Bill Clinton ordering air strikes while today many are saying crazy things like this is Iraq war II all over again.
mclaren
@Belafon:
Since we are not in a declared state of war with anyone, your claim is garbage.
I'mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet
@Phoenician in a time of Romans: Thanks. That reminds me of John Singer Sargent’s famous painting…
Cheers,
Scott.
Cassidy
@jamick6000: See what I mean? Cole quit reading the comments ( he doesn’t handle complex opinions very well and/or drunk) and his little court jester arrives to be its normal, predictable, boring self.
joes527
@fuzz:
If by “anything” you mean lobbing a few missiles in to kill some folks who probably had nothing to do with the attacks themselves? I’d be a “no.”
If you mean, going in, arresting Assad, delivering him to the Hague, taking possession of the chemical weapons and destroying them, and providing a security infrastructure to allow the country to transition to peaceful self rule, I could get behind that. But history has shown that we aren’t very good at that sort of thing, so I’d be pretty skeptical.
I’ll step aside now and give you a chance to piss yourself over the very idea of actually doing something rather than just waving your tomahawk missile around.
Mnemosyne
@Bill E Pilgrim:
Again, you misunderstand — I, at least, believe that unilateral military action by the United States is a really bad idea. I think that military action by the UN or Arab League is a great idea and they need to get their asses in gear to do it.
And, yes, because unlike you I do not think that any and all military action by anyone is a bad idea, it’s hard for me to shit on Obama for trying to get something done even if I think he’s going about it the wrong way.
Ted & Hellen
@mclaren:
Captain Nemo is crazy as a loon. Plus, it has severe OCD, as it has confessed more than once in these here very threadlets.
Knowing these two things will help you understand the madness on clear display in its trolling.
Baud
Good thing John stated he wasn’t trying to troll us with this post. Otherwise, this thread might have degenerated into nastiness.
Mnemosyne
@mclaren:
Do you genuinely not understand the difference between a news story and an editorial?
I guess we all have to stop making fun of David Brooks, because the mere fact that he is published by the New York Times means that every word out of his mouth is 100 percent factual news reporting.
Jeremy
@Keith P: You do know that Israel has already struck targets in Syria over the past 2 years, and Syria has not retaliated.
Why would Assad who is dealing with a conflict within his own country strike another country when he doesn’t have the capacity to sustain a war with another country ?
Botsplainer
@Ted & Hellen:
Sez the half-assed “artiste”.
Bob In Portland
@Jeremy: The first attack was on a Syrian army checkpoint.
fuzz
@joes527:
Saying that unless the situation can be completely solved then nothing should be done at all isn’t a really good position to take though (imo). There are plenty of evils and wrongs in the world and yes it would take a monumental effort to stop them or even curb them a little bit, but the idea that just because there’s no perfect ending doesn’t necessarily make doing nothing the automatic choice. You’re not going to catch every single criminal, bring them to trial, conviction and then get closure for those harmed by them, but that doesn’t mean that doing any police work at all in an effort to protect the laws and norms of your society isn’t worth doing. Your conclusion is nice too, waving my metaphorical missile around indeed my friend.
Felonius Monk
@fuzz: No, I think the use of chemical weapons is morally repugnant and cowardly.
That said, I do not think there is any existential threat to this country and so I don’t think we need to do anything. There is also the fact that no hard evidence has yet been presented showing who actually perpetrated this attack.
It also might be of interest to some that although the United States was a signatory to the Geneva Protocol that banned the use of chemical weapons in 1925. The U.S. Senate never ratified it until 1975 because the U.S. military lobbied very hard for us not to be bound by this treaty.
Mnemosyne
@Neutron Flux:
At the moment, no one, which is why I’m against it.
If the UN is able to decide on sanctions or the Arab League decides to drop some bombs, I’m all in favor of the US assisting them. But I do not think the US should act on its own.
Ted & Hellen
Unsurprising that hardcore Bots here learned zero from the last 13 years of insanity.
Having recently invaded and occupied Iraq in an illegal, undeclared war of aggression and killing hundreds of thousands of people, the United States has zero standing/credibility to call out any other country for doing any kind of “illegal” war making bullshit.
Barack Obama recently gave a speech celebrating the opening of a library (cough) dedicated to the awesomeness of one of history’s worst war criminals.
Fuck him and all other war mongers.
hoodie
Here goes, JC. Obama getting congressional approval for military action is not the same thing as executing the strikes and provides no insight as to what Obama will do in terms of timing and scope. So many people insist on viewing this through the lens of GWB, but you have ample proof that Obama is not a fuckup like that. That’s particularly the case in these issues of national security. Obama risked a confrontation with Pakistan over the bin Laden raid and prevailed. Libya was a success in certain limited terms, even though the country is a mess. We didn’t lose anyone and probably no more Libyans died than would have died if Gaddafi had prevailed, which would likely have resulted in purges, bloodbaths and refugee problems that would have been horrific. Gaddafi was not a nice guy. He was a fucking loon that had a 747 full of civilians blown up over Scotland, for chrissakes. Obama has kept us out of Syria for a long time, but we’re in a crack right now, and it has absolutely nothing to do with the fucking red line. Someone’s playing with Sarin at the nexus of the most volatile region in the world, and we’re the world’s sole superpower. Lucky us.
The irony is that Bush was correct; the president is the Deciderer. That was the case with Lincoln, Roosevelt, you name any other presidential heroes of American liberals. They did things that weren’t exactly liberal and were often quite brutal, yet they are considered to be good, even great presidents. Bush decided wrong and is pretty universally viewed to be a lousy president.
You give Obama the approval because it is not unreasonable that, in his judgement, strikes are the thing to do to respond to such an atrocity. You reasonably hope he won’t fuck it up in terms of scope and scale because he has not been shown to be irrational or lying. You may not even agree with his final judgement, but it’s his job, not yours. You’re just a dumb fucking blogger who writes about cats, dogs and food, with limited access to information and you’re just as likely, if not more likely, to be wrong as he is. He knows all your fucking arguments; he probably revisits them every night in his sleep, if he gets any. Again, he’s not George Bush.
This is a gigantic game of chicken with a psychopath who will do anything to remain in power and may do even more desperate things if things start going badly for him, which they likely will considering that that richest Arab states want him fucking dead. However, he relies on a bunch of cronies who might not be that crazy or desperate, as well as allies like Russia who will have limits on how far they’ll let this go, and that’s part of the audience for what Obama is doing. He’s threading a needle, and one misstep could mean disaster. Bush had a similar confrontation, but fucked it up by prematurely ejaculating and spewing all over everyone. Saddam wasn’t even doing anything, that’s how bad Bush’s judgment was.
Get over the Bush syndrome. He lied to you, but you were dumb enough to believe him. Tough shit.
The Dangerman
While I don’t think the House will pass any authorization, I do think one has to look at the bigger picture in this potential strike, namely, Iran. Lately, they’ve been warming to the West.
If we go and lay waste to Syria’s Air defenses (read between Obama’s lines; I think he was being quite clear when he said it wouldn’t make any difference when we were to hit Syria and I don’t think the message would be missed in Tehran), how does that impact the situation with Iran? Recall, when Israel hit the Iraqi reactor, they flew over Saudi Arabia, who have since, presumably, improved their air defense system dramatically…
…and flying over Jordan is right out.
Hitting Syria if the only thing of interest is chemical weapons doesn’t make a lot of sense; there are more chips in the game someplace. What those are are, of course, unknown.
Neutron Flux
@Bobby Thomson: From your link: In fact, the American failure to prevent a communist victory in Vietnam had much less of a global impact than had been assumed by the domino theory. Though communist regimes did arise in Laos and Cambodia after 1975, communism failed to spread throughout the rest of Southeast Asia.
To say that if we do not respond to this CW event in Syria will lead to more CW events is the domino theory writ small.
We have hashed and rehashed the arguments for these last few days. It seems to me now is the time to say for or against.
fuzz
@Jeremy:
I basically agree with you on that. People are making the wrong comparisons. This is more like the missions against Gaddafi under Regan, or Iraq under Clinton (Op Desert Fox I think it was called) than Iraq of 03 or Obama’s decision to surge in A’stan in 09. There are arguments for and against but we’re making weird comparisons, at least to me.
Mary G
Got this great e-mail from Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut:
He didn’t ask for more money, either. I like this guy way better than Lieberman.
Cacti
You were also in favor of that other war that was supported by the majority of the nation (until it wasn’t).
Let’s just call your powers of prognostication over these things as somewhat less than stellar.
Mnemosyne
@Ted & Hellen:
Dude, ADHD. Jaysus, you can’t even keep your insults straight.
Keith P
@Jeremy: Because he’s got a shit-ton of chemical ordinance, and he’s now cracked the bottle open.
ruemara
Lately, I’m starting to wonder if one of the other unforeseen consequences of the Bush Doctrine is an inability to actually respond to real international issues as a coalition and the utter loss of credibility of the US, the UK and the UN.
@Mary G: I’ve been pretty happy with my donation to him when he was running. I got my $5 worth.
raven
Wow, you dickheads are still at it? I took a break to watch Romy and Michelle to try to get an idea of where ya’ll are coming from.
Xantar
@mclaren:
Umm…sometimes the New York Times and the Washington Post do in fact run opinion pieces by people who aren’t actually on their staff or otherwise associated with them. And sometimes those opinion pieces are bullshit. And sometimes the editorial staff of the New York Times and Washington Post don’t agree with those opinion pieces.
Neutron Flux
@Mnemosyne: Apparently, we are in violent agreement.
Baud
@raven:
Who?
Phoenician in a time of Romans
My personal wish
i, Go to the UN, have Assad and maybe three or four of his top cronies publicly declared “hostis humani generis”.
ii, Place a ten million dollar bounty on their heads, personally – dead.
iii, Muddle around as usual with sanctions and embargoes in the usual (non-bombing, non-invading) manner, while reminding everyone that there’s $10 million in it for killing these turkeys.
Cacti
@Jeremy:
The pacifist left did oppose intervention in Kosovo. Michael Moore tried to make a ham-handed connection between it and the Columbine Shootings in Bowling for Columbine (because, hey, they’re both violence maaaan!). Once Clinton was vindicated, they didn’t mention it again.
Of course, they also criticized Clinton for lack of action in Rwanda.
So to sum up, the firebaggers are opposed to intervention, except for when it turns out well and they’re proven wrong, or when they’re not opposed to it.
Crystal clear, no?
joes527
@fuzz:
Dude! You are so good at reading, you can read words that aren’t even there. But nice straw-man. We can devolve right into the perfect being the enemy of the good, and before you know it we will be accusing each other of making paper mache puppets.
Or you could realize that tossing a few missiles into an unstable region with chemical weapons rolling around and truly nasty characters on all sides, but not really having any interest in going the distance isn’t just not perfect. It is a recipe for disaster.
But at least we could do it from over the horizon.
Mnemosyne
@The Dangerman:
Take a look at a map — why would the US fly over Saudi Arabia or Jordan to hit Syria when Turkey is our NATO ally with US airbases?
raven
@Baud: You know.
Dave
@raven: I don’t pretend to think that we have unlimited leverage in all instances. I’m worried about what happens if China decides to take a more belligerent stance versus Taiwan, for example. We have a commitment to Taiwan that I’m terrified about upholding. My wife is an amateur Korean scholar and keeps me regularly freaked out about the Korean peninsula. My friend from Australia says they are keeping an anxious eye on Indonesia. Trouble everywhere, potentially.
Baud
@raven:
Oh. I thought you were talking about some TV pundits. You were actually watching something far more intellectual.
raven
@Dave: I’m an amateur Korean scholar myself. 13 months on the DMZ during the Pueblo and Blue House Raid will do that to you.
Mandalay
If you are going to tell a lie you may as well make it a gifuckingnormous lie.
Our politicians and lawyers are beyond shame.
raven
@Baud: I was watching a dopey movie about the 80’s (or something).
Mnemosyne
@Neutron Flux:
Which is, of course, the problem with Cole’s original post — he’s demanding that commenters explain why we support something that most of us don’t actually support. It’s a completely manufactured bullshit argument along the lines of when did you stop beating your wife?
Ted & Hellen
@Mnemosyne:
It’s yet another misfortune you must bear, to feel that your deeply crippling illness is something to be ashamed of, an “insult,” as it were.
Because, once again, you are trying to put words in the mouths of other commenters.
FOCUS, retard.
The Dangerman
@Mnemosyne:
The US wouldn’t fly over the countries you mentioned to hit Syria. Of course not…
…I guess I wasn’t clear; I’m suggesting someone (wink, wink) might want to fly over Syria on their way to Iran. Yes, that means flying over Iraq and probably causing World War 3 (always the positive thinker, I am), but if the path would be through Syria, that makes the route far less of a suicide mission for someone’s (wink, wink) pilots (excluding the whole WW3 thing).
raven
@Mandalay: And you are an idiot all fucking day long.
Cacti
And the dumbass of the day award on this issue goes to Sen. Ed Markey.
Markey insisted that the President bring the issue before Congress. Then when the Senate Intelligence Committee voted on that very issue, Ed voted…
Present.
fuzz
@joes527:
It’s not just lobbing missiles though. Assad’s army is very reliant on air power not just to kill but for resupply. He has bases and even villages where the only way the war is sustained is by air, so hitting his airfields is actually a lot more damaging than people think because in many parts of Syria his men can’t safely use the roads. The same for the missile sites. The idea that destroying long range missiles won’t harm someone militarily is something I really can’t agree with, especially when he’s started to use even SCUDs more and more. It’s not just lobbing missiles, the Syrian army is in a very precarious situation, if anything I think the language being used by the pol’s doesn’t emphasize that enough, any amount of bombing will make a difference, especially in certains areas (Aleppo, Idlib and Dez ez Zour especially).
Jeremy
@hoodie: Right ! I was against Iraq because I knew it was bullshit. It didn’t take a rocket scientist to know that Iraq was in a weak state and doing nothing. But too many people in this country bought Bush’s bullshit and gave him the benefit of the doubt (even from people like Glenn Greenwald).
The situation is nothing like Iraq and what the President plans to do is nothing like operation Iraqi Freedom. It’s comparable to the strikes Clinton ordered in the 90’s.
mclaren
@Ted & Hellen:
Frankly, it seems unlikely to me that the troll calling itself “Mnemosyne” is a real person. It’s more likely a rotating group of paid astroturfers working out of the Pentagon basement.
“How the NDAA allows the U.S. government to use propaganda against Americans.”
Mnemosyne
@Ted & Hellen:
Hey, at least I can take medication for my illness. All you can do is try really really hard not to drink and fuck up your life. Again.
Mnemosyne
@The Dangerman:
Yeah, I really don’t think this is all a ploy by Obama to attack Iran. Call me an optimist.
I wouldn’t be surprised if Israel thinks it might end up being a side benefit for them, but Obama’s not as dumb as Bush and has pushed back hard on all of their bright ideas about attacking Iran, so I don’t think that dog is gonna bark.
Cacti
@Mnemosyne:
It doesn’t even require calling you an optimist.
You’re just not a tinfoil hat wearing loon.
joes527
@fuzz: and then what happens?
the Conster
I’m going to refrain opining until something happens. I think Obama is Paris, in The Judgement of Paris. Hera, Athena and Aphrodite are the International Community, the American People, and the Congress. Awarding the prize to Congress like Paris did to Aphrodite means a new Trojan War, so we’ve got that going for us.
mclaren
@Xantar:
So therefore we should automatically discount everything the New York Times publishes.
Good thinking there, buckaroo.
The Dangerman
@Mnemosyne:
No, not to attack Iran; to threaten an attack on Iran. Someone said it above. This feels a gigantic game of chicken and this involves more than Syria as the other driver (recall, they are basically a client state for Iran).
Jeremy
@Cacti: I think you summed it up perfectly. The NATO, UN Libya operation is another example. The emos were calling Obama a warmonger for stopping a mass killing and then when the operation succeeded the critics were silent. Libya right now is not in great shape but they are doing better than a lot of countries in the region.
Morbo
@Keith P:
Well, don’t be too sure about that. Take the source with a grain of salt, but for what it’s worth…
Yatsuno
@mclaren: As has been noted to you multiple times, Al-Alawaki was tried and convicted in Yemen. At that point, the Yemenis could and did request that we mete said punishment. But don’t let that little fact ruin your purity brigade.
Cacti
@Jeremy:
Our blog host opposes any military action that occurs under a Democratic administration.
Emma
@Mnemosyne: Ignore them. McLaren is the guy on Speaker’s Corner ranting about the Illuminati. T&H is a performance artist with no talent and a limited vocabulary.
Jeremy
@Mnemosyne: Also it doesn’t make sense since it’s been reported in the New York times that the administration has been talking to Syria through back channels and representatives. Why would Obama threaten them with an attack when the sanctions have crippled their economy and the Iranians are more open to talks.
Omnes Omnibus
@Emma: Pretty much. I am now sitting here feeling shame for engaging with mclaren this evening.
fuzz
@joes527:
You hope the rebels can capitalize and win. This leads to an even more isolated Iran, who just lost one of the 2 allies they have in the world who is actually capable of helping do anything. It’s also devastating to Hezbollah. But then you’re thinking “but what about the al-qaeda guys amongst the rebels!?” That’s where you may disagree, but the government has made clear that they see the Iran/Syria/Russia axis as more dangerous than AQ. The AQ guys will be dealt with by Syrians themselves (this is also one of the real reasons for training rebels in Jordan, they don’t just fight Assad, they fight the Salafists as well) with help from us and likely other countries, just like Libya, Yemen, Pakistan and even Mali. The AQ presence among the rebels is no greater than it was in Libya, but it’s much more frightening to Americans (for obvious reasons) and is played up not only by our own media but by Assad and even the AQ rebels themselves, who are not known for being subtle and/or humble and want to play up their influence for their Gulf state donors.
aangus
https://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn2/q71/1185893_166011246920698_253333943_n.jpg
via Xan Avalon
Cacti
Hello, my name is John Cole.
I support military intervention over imaginary WMD, and oppose it over real ones.
Baud
@Omnes Omnibus:
I thought about jumping in a couple of times. I was able to stay strong.
Ted & Hellen
@Mnemosyne:
Well, yeah, but your medication isn’t working.
? Martin
@fuzz:
Because Russia and China have veto power, even if the entire rest of the UN including Switzerland and the Vatican supported it, nothing would happen.
You’re projecting intent on the UN that we have no means to assess.
The Dangerman
@Jeremy:
Talks are one thing; getting them to an agreement is the ultimate goal. I’m just proposing this would help nudge them to get to agreement if they felt a little more vulnerable (an agreement that all the Arab States, especially Saudi Arabia, wants).
Yatsuno
@Baud: I jumped. I haz fail. But now I’m getting dinner so I have a distraction for a bit.
Mnemosyne
@Emma:
Oh, mclaren doesn’t bother me — we haven’t had a good scrap in a while. But admitted alcoholic Timmy’s bashing of other people’s weaknesses is always fascinating to watch.
The Sheriff's A Ni-
@aangus: I wonder what the same crowd would’ve thought of the Atlantic Charter, Lend Lease, and the AVG.
Mnemosyne
@Ted & Hellen:
Neither is your sobriety, Mr. Raging Dry Drunk. What now?
Jeremy
@Cacti: The President doesn’t care about the polls. If he did he wouldn’t have gone and saved the auto bailout, or pushed healthcare reform during a economic crisis, or order a raid in a sovereign country to get Bin Laden.
mclaren
@Yatsuno:
So America is supposed to ignore the fifth amendment and tear up the constitution and wipe our ass with it because some other country convicted an American citizen for a crime against their laws?
Genius.
Cacti
@The Sheriff’s A Ni-:
The anexation of the Sudetenland was a European problem. No need for us to get involved.
Cacti
@mclaren:
Lincoln was history’s greatest monster. He sent the army of the potomac to deal with the south rather than police with arrest warrants.
mclaren
@Mnemosyne:
As we see, the Pentagon astroturfer calling itself “Mnemosyne” has nothing to offer but name-calling and insults.
Tell your commanding officer you just can’t cut it, “Mnemosyne.”
Jeremy
@The Dangerman: Oh okay. Well that could be possible.
? Martin
@Cacti: Attacking Germany won’t bring any of those Jews back to life.
mclaren
@Cacti:
Abraham Lincoln was in the middle of a declared war facing an insurrection. The constitution allows for a president to declare martial law in an emergency like that.
Explain the insurrection Obama is facing where half the United States has taken arms against him and is fighting pitched battles against the U.S. army.
FlyingToaster
@James E. Powell:
Will removing Assad solve anything at all?
At least one of the leaked intercepts had HQ calling a commander in the area of the gassings asking WTF?
It’s not clear who did this. Was it Assad? Was it his lunatic brother? Was it a member of the Free Syrian Army? Was it one of the Islamist rebel groups? Was it some guy who bought some from an army sergeant in order to gas his mother-in-law and her whole evil neighborhood? Was it an army captain who after 2 years of trying to get at the bastards he’s been fighting decided to say “FUCK IT ALL” and killed them all to let God sort them out?
I’d like the UN to tell us what the fuck was used. Then I’d like us to figure out who deployed it, and then I’d like to know where it was made. THEN and only then can I make an intelligent decision about whether a cruise missle will do anything at all.
There may simply not be a military solution. Which means that all 192 member nations (well, 191) have to toss their Syrian ambassadors out and withdraw their embassies. Step up refugee assistance and treat Syria as a fucking pariah.
Never happen, alas, but that would be a better place to start.
Mnemosyne
@mclaren:
Tell us again how George Will’s columns are always 100 percent factual because he’s published by the Washington Post. That one was hilarious.
The Sheriff's A Ni-
@? Martin: I’m not even touching that one.
Keith G
@fuzz:
And I assume that if we can stall or stop the gas attacks, there might be a leveling off of the refugee flight to Jordan. If the rebels make progress that is an extra benefit as that may well lead to a drop in refugee movement across that border.
Cross border refugee movement is a huge problem since it could lead to conditions that might make Jordan less stable. Next to Israel, Jordan is our closest ally in the region and if that government were to be destabilized our diplomatic and strategic conditions in that area would be in a world of hurt.
I believe that is why we are doing this.
Cacti
@mclaren:
No declared state of war existed at any time during the hostilities, nor was there an explicit authorization for the use of military force by the Congress, unlike there was with Awlaki.
Lincoln deprived 90,000 US citizens of the 5th amendment right to due process, and destroyed the property of hundreds of thousands of others without just compensation.
His face should be scrubbed from all currency, and his monument on the national mall should be demolished.
Monster.
Morbo
G20 should be a little frosty this year.
Jeremy
I am so tired of hearing about Al Awalaki. Just because he was American doesn’t mean he should be protected when he was a terrorist who helped plan terrorist attacks. The man fled to Yemen and betrayed the US. If you want to get mad at Obama and call him a monster then you will have to say the same for many former Presidents including the great Abraham Lincoln.
eemom
@mclaren:
And don’t forget the part about how we’re all privates! Cuz otherwise Omnes would outrank me, and I’d have to call him Sir.
ruemara
@mclaren: Oddly, you’re all for supporting Ted & Helen when he does that. Now. When you agree with him.
The Sheriff's A Ni-
@Cacti: You didn’t even mention his revocation of habeas corpus. They would’ve slippery sloped into the Stasi before there even was a Stasi. A clever dictator, that Lincoln.
Cacti
@? Martin:
Or Poles, or Slavs, or French, or Czechs, or Slovaks, or Romani, or homosexuals, or trade unionists, etc.
fuzz
@Keith G:
I can see that. Jordan is in a world of hurt refugee wise. That main camp there for Syrians now has 100k people and is the 5th largest city in the country, and this is in addition to the millions of Palestinians registered there (though I think they have full citizenship now) and the 100s of thousands of Iraqis.
Jeremy
@Cacti: Love the sarcasm. The funny thing is that emos love to call Obama a monster when Lincoln did things that make drone strikes look like a picnic.
p.s. Lincoln is one of my favorite presidents
Mnemosyne
@eemom:
I’m still kind of surprised that the Army was willing to take an asthmatic 40-year-old woman with ADHD and 20/200 vision, but I guess they were just that desperate.
Botsplainer
@Ted & Hellen:
Wow – I have run into some really nasty fucking dry drunks in my day, but you take the prize.
? Martin
@FlyingToaster:
There were multiple simultaneous attacks along with multiple conventional attacks in the same areas. That suggests that at least it was someone near the top – Assad, his brother, some other general level. It could have been the rebels, but that seems unlikely. It wasn’t an isolated attack. It was in areas Assad has been having great trouble with (why gas your own strongholds?), it killed quite a few of their own children, and the people that went in to document it all died as well. That’s one hell of a level of commitment to a false flag operation.
eemom
@Cacti:
fixerated.
Poopyman
I might have been at happy hour or something when the proof came out, but last I heard the rockets looked rough enough to have been homemade, and therefore not necessarily from Assad’s forces. Can anyone point to definitive proof that it was really Assad who sent the CW?
Bobby Thomson
@Neutron Flux: Except for, you know, the complete lack of communism.
“The” domino theory means something, and it’s not what you think it is.
Bargal20
@Schlemizel:
Oh you moral and righteous Americans; so opposed to chemicals, but not to nukes.
eemom
@Mnemosyne:
Not to mention an asthmatic 51 year old with authority issues.
mclaren
Isn’t anyone going to try to revive the old dead-and-debunked faulty analogy between a policeman and Obama?
Buehler? Anyone?
Every possible bogus argument has been made in a frantic effort to claim that Obama has the powers of presidents like FDR, who exercised his powers during a declared war or Abraham Lincoln, who exercised his powers during a declared war.
America is not in a declared war. We’re not fighting against another state.
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.
Where are the two witnesses to the overt act?
What overt act are we talking about? Making speeches? How is that an “overt act” that consists of treason?
What act did any American perform today in “levying war” against the United States?
According to your wacko definition of treason, I should be charged with and convicted of treason for writing about “shithole America.”
You really don’t like America, don’t you?
If you so dislike the constitution of the united states, why don’t you emigrate to North Korea?
Keith G
@fuzz: As I mentioned earlier (drowned out by the increasing troll feeding and troll wars plaguing this thread) Jordan has a very bad history with refugees.
Ted & Hellen
@Mnemosyne:
Oh no dear. My sobriety works just fine, thanks.
Everyone has anger. It’s what they do with it that matters. The fact that you are still living is proof that mine is under control.
You apparently work yours out by posting endlessly circular comments that loop back in around on themselves and are full of quotes from others that they never said. You create a world full of imagined spiders and they’re crawling all over you and it’s unattractive to watch.
But do carry on.
Cacti
@Bargal20:
Has someone recently been nuking civilian targets, or are you lamenting the late Empire of Japan?
Botsplainer
@Ted & Hellen:
What the fuck does that mean?
mclaren
@Mnemosyne:
You’re really a 20-year-old pfc in the Pentagon basement.
Cacti
@mclaren:
Why do you keep repeating this falsehood?
There was no war declared by the United States Congress from 1861 to 1865. A declaration of war would have legitimized the secessionists. In the view of the United States government, there were no “Confederate States of America”. One cannot declare war against a country that doesn’t exist.
Keith G
@mclaren: It’s late. I am really tired, but as I recall the Rosenbergs were tried and hanged for treason in 1953.
The Sheriff's A Ni-
@mclaren:
Lend-Lease was signed into law in March 1941.
Roosevelt and Churchill agreed to the Atlantic Charter in August 1941.
The Flying Tigers were organized throughout the summer and fall of 1941.
And, again, where’s the declaration of war against the Confederacy?
fuzz
@Keith G:
Yup. the king’s wife, Queen Rainia, may be one of the more gorgeous women I’ve ever seen, but honestly I wouldn’t want to be him right now.
Cacti
@Botsplainer:
That he’s rough and tough and would fix your little red wagon if he wasn’t so peaceful.
You can stop giggling now.
glasnost
Ugh. This blog demands an impossible amount of attention. If you get to a post 12 hours later, you might as well not even bother. Well, anyway:
First, degrading capacity is a reasonably straightforward task. I think one reasonable goal suffices.
Presumably, what deter Assad from continuing to use chemical weapons is a desire to avoid losing more capacity. His military infrastructure is kind of important to his war, since he’s at a large manpower disadvantage.
Assuming he did use them – you merely demonstate your total and offensive disinterest in the material facts known. You own a blog, read the fucking intelligence summary released. You’re as ignorant as the people we make fun of, but still spouting your opinion. It’s an airtight case.
As for your final question, the rebels represent the large majority of the population of Syria. By default, the country will be more stable when they’re in charge. Apartheid is inherently unstable. This isn’t rocket science. Furthermore, Assad’s record of behavior and governance, as well as the relative conduct of war by the two sides – spare me the youtube anecdotes, anecdotes DNE data – makes abundantly clear that we have a better shot at a non-horrific massacre outcome for the war’s ending with Assad the loser.
That should do it.
FormerSwingVoter
Remember a couple of years ago, how the strikes on Libya were definitely the precursor to a full ground invasion to placate the neo-cons and would result in bajillions of lost US dollars and dead soldiers and another decade-long war etc etc etc.?
It’d be cool to hear how the people who were wrong about that are not wrong about this.
Also:
This is pure bullshit. You don’t want us to get involved? That’s fine. I can respect that. But don’t come in here with that “Maybe the 1300 people who died in a single hour just all got the flu at the same time” crap. You’re better than that.
mclaren
@Ted & Hellen:
This is the giveaway that the astroturfer calling himself “Mnemosyne” is most likely a rotating group of people, probably pfcs in the Pentagon basement. One astroturfer can’t remember what the last one posted, so the comments tend to be disjointed and bizarre.
Mnemosyne
@Ted & Hellen:
What’s this, Tim? A threat? It certainly looks like one to me.
Yet another crack in your hypocrisy: you wail like a banshee if you think you’ve been threatened by another commenter, but you’re certainly happy to threaten others when it suits your purposes. Fascinating.
mclaren
@The Sheriff’s A Ni-:
Okay, so now we’ve got someone trying to claim to that the Civil War was not actually a war.
Right.
That’s it, we’re done here. Somebody turn out the lights when the last person leaves.
Cacti
@mclaren:
You said that the US civil war was a declared war. Please take all the time you need to come up with the date that such declaration was passed by Congress.
Or you could just admit you didn’t know what you were talking about, and spare yourself further embarrassment.
mclaren
Incidentally, people are trying to claim that the Lend-Lease Agreement of 1941 is somehow equivalent to murdering an American by drone for alleged treason without ever actually alleging treason or even accusing that American of committing a crime.
What is wrong with this picture?
Garbled reasoning and scrambling thinking deluxe.
Cacti
@mclaren:
So about that declaration of war on the southern states.
Found a date yet?
Emma
@mclaren: Technically, what you call a Civil War was a government action against insurrectionists. The United States government never recognized the Confederate States as a nation.
? Martin
@mclaren:
By your definition it wasn’t a war. Cacti is right. Congress’s viewpoint was that the Confederates were US citizens committing treason. 9 million al-Awlaki’s. Lincoln ordered the killing of 260,000 US citizens.
By your definition…
The Sheriff's A Ni-
@mclaren:
So you didn’t even bother reading my initial post, you just made a leap from one argument to another that would make Evel Kneivel go ‘damn’. Awesome.
Chris Bannister
Even though I’ve been reading this blog for years (post JC Iraq-war flip), I always hesitated to read the comments/threads, fearing that they would too much like the shit-show comments everywhere else. I started digging in about 6 months ago but never added to the commentary — I preferred to observe and get to know the people (as commenters) here. Right now (it could have been weeks ago) I hit the limit. This place — comments specifically, but of course they have a significant effect on the blog — is like a giant circle jerk made up of people that hate each other. Seriously, the vast majority of comments on any touchy, complex subject devolve into a pathetic game of “fuck you” “no fuck you” punctuated by snide, trolly shit. All I can think is what the fuck are people doing in threads like these? (Yes, I realize the irony.) Many/most regulars just dig their feet in the sand and piss on each other — again, what for? What is the upside? Cure for boredom? Feed ego? I have no confidence that this will mean anything to anyone, and it will surely get me pissed on, but I am simply giving my opinion once and heading for the hills.
Which brings me to a more significant point — John Cole and his blog. I sincerely doubt he will read this, but I might as well continue because I think the comments have, over the long haul, taken a toll on him and any ‘vision/mission’ he had/has for this blog. Currently, overall, this blog — which used to be one of my favorites — is totally predictable and boring, and I have come to believe that it is because of the relationship between John and the commenters. Cole’s posts have become scattered musings that lack the focus and depth they once had; often he goes days without any substantive post, and not a day goes by without a half dozen open threads that seem to have become the focal point of the blog. But a blog is all about the community of readers and commenters, you say? This blog, as much as many would cling to as their own, is in fact Cole’s blog. At least it used to be, and I think it needs a guiding hand to regain purpose and value. Am I suggesting group think? No more comments? No and no. What I am suggesting is John Cole re-claim some of the energy, purpose, and vision of a blog to which his life is so connected. Take hold of the front page, for goodness sake. Or, as some part of me feels, get the fuck out of this business, which too often is a toxic stew that ultimately achieves absolutely nothing, just like this comment will.
Ted & Hellen
@Botsplainer:
Thank you, fuck face!
Tomolitics
@hoodie:
This. Too bad it came so late in the thread that everyone’s just in food fight mode and isn’t paying attention. Also too bad that people who got the last big crisis so wrong can’t weigh the current one on its own merits. Selah.
Ted & Hellen
@Botsplainer:
Are you upset? What?
Ted & Hellen
@Mnemosyne:
Who’s “Tim?”
Did someone threaten you?
More evidence of your PTSD.
Ted & Hellen
@Mnemosyne:
Well, yeah, but with your severe and under-medicated Antisocial Personality Order and Bipolar proclivities, I’m guessing a bran muffin recipe looks like a threat to you, dear.
By the way, I’m watching you through the window…right NOW.
I’m typing this comment FROM INSIDE THE HOUSE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Mnemosyne
@Ted & Hellen:
Don’t worry, Timmy, I told Cole not to ban you even though threatening other commenters is the one sure-fire banning action. I think it’s better for you to know that you’re only hanging on here thanks to my graciousness in overlooking an action that you demand others be banned for doing when you happen to be the recipient.
FlyingToaster
@? Martin: I didn’t think false flag. I did think either a) lack of complete control in government forces’ hierarchy or b) the Islamists would have no compunction about gassing a largely secular area where their secondary foes (Free Syrian Army) are supported while a conventional attack by government forces was ongoing.
Or Assad could have done it.
Unfortunately, the people saying “trust us” (the US government and the Israeli government) have long since blown my confidence in them. Start showing us the raw dump, or let someone who isn’t a ratfucker by profession get us the evidence.
LT
@Jeremy: That’s the more that has to be known.
Not to mention I’d rather go with UN weapons inspectors on exactly what was used.
Yatsuno
@FlyingToaster: The one credible source (Medicins sans Frontieres) has confirmed sarin gas poisoning. So someone poisoned a civilian population. This much has been determined. It’s the who and who ordered the who that’s in question right now. And I’ll need a definitive answer before we start dropping freedumb bombs.
Lady Bug
@FormerSwingVoter:
This is pure bullshit. You don’t want us to get involved? That’s fine. I can respect that. But don’t come in here with that “Maybe the 1300 people who died in a single hour just all got the flu at the same time” crap. You’re better than that.
THIS.
LT
@Yatsuno: Regarding Medicins sans Frontieres:
http://www.emptywheel.net/2013/09/03/the-case-for-war-since-when-is-medecins-sans-frontieres-a-secret-intelligence-source/
Ted & Hellen
@Mnemosyne:
Dumb ass. Wake up!
I’M IN THE HOUSSSSSSEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
? Martin
@FlyingToaster:
This is an impossible standard. If the media relayed the information, they’d be attacked either for shilling for the administration (let a thousand cries of Judith Miller ring out) or trying to undermine Obama. Every possible source of information, including direct reports, are now dismissed out of hand based on some prior act – sometimes with reference back to the 50s. If after half a century and a dozen administrations credibility cannot be re-earned, then the expectations are unrealistic.
The only thing we can therefore rely (and should rely on) are our elected officials. This is a representative, not a direct democracy. That’s not an excuse to not inform the people, but fully a quarter of the population denies the birth certificate the President distributed and was certified by the Hawaii Governor. Clearly informing the people is insufficient. So, let’s demand that Congress be informed and trust their decision. That process now appears to be playing out pretty much as everyone here has asked. Obama doesn’t need my approval – he needs my Senators’ and Representative’s. Let’s make sure that process works to our satisfaction.
RandomMonster
Without reading 300+ comments, I’ll just add my vote for non-intervention. If we want to try Assad for war crimes, let’s just build a case using the UN.
Cacti
@Yatsuno:
We also know that it was a coordinated strike that took place over a large geographic area. Doctors Without Borders treated victims at three separate hospital locations. We know that the Syrian Army has both the ordnance and the logistical capability to launch such an attack. The evidence that the rebels have the same capability…well, nothing so far.
Cacti
@RandomMonster:
And since there won’t be intervention, we just wait for him to surrender himself to the Hague when his conscience gets the better of him.
Yatsuno
@LT: A good statement by them. I can understand their not wanting to be used to justify any actions that would run counter to their mission.
eemom
@RandomMonster:
Please stop wasting your time here and go invent a cure for cancer or something.
Srsly. You are smarter than all of us put together multiplied by infinity zillion.
Lady Bug
@Cacti:
WRT to Bosnia & Kosovo, there is still a segment of the “far left” that engaged and continue to engage in war crime denial (the concentration and rape camps were fakes, Srebrenica never happened-and if it did it was the result of the Bosniaks all killing themselves, or some bullshit like that). Their reasoning behind their stance seemed to be a bit of knee jerk anti-West/anti-U.S. policy, where everything the U.S. does is inherently wrong, to wanting to prop up a “socialist” regime, to blatant Islamophobia. The Islamophobia was actually similar to that of the “far right” which also continues to to this day to engage in war crime denial about Bosnia, visit Freep and search for Bosnia and you’ll see what I mean.
I use to think Rwanda was a bridge to far, especially since it was one of the most definitive genocides of the modern era. But alas, Edward Herman and someone else whose name I forgotten, have within the past few years written a book essentially claiming that the victims of the 1994 Rwandan genocide were mostly Hutus, not Tutsis, politically moderate Hutus and Hutus who were mistaken for Tutsis.
Odie Hugh Manatee
What really gets me about all of the arguing by those opposed to any action because of our own tainted past regarding chemical weapons (Saddam/Iran-Iraq War) is that this argument is a dead end for the world. The argument is that since we fucked up in the past then we lose any right to ever respond to such a situation where the roles are reversed. This doesn’t make sense at all. Another issue is that the actions (or lack of) of a prior administration should tie the hands of a future administration in dealing with a reversed situation. I’m not for anyone dying but regardless of what happens, people are going to die and most of them are going to be innocents. I’m truly torn on the issue of a response, it’s not a clearly black and white issue as some morans in here have implied. There’s no simple answer to this, only a ‘less bad’ one because no matter what is decided, bad things are going to happen to some people.
Another thought: If our government has lost the moral right to respond to things like this, will it ever regain the moral ground to do so? If so, how? Do we regain the high ground by standing by for a certain number of genocidal gassings?
Or is it as I said above, that we have forever lost the right to do anything? If that’s the case, this world is fucked.
patroclus
@Tomolitics: Yeah, I think hoodie gave the best argument in the entire thread. I personally oppose bombing of Syria for all the reasons I’ve given in the previous threads – I would prefer awaiting the UN inspectors report, going to the Security Council, much more refugee aid, some arms to some rebels, economic sanctions, making Syria a pariah state, more diplomacy etc… Plus, I don’t think the bombing is likely to accomplish much (like Somalia and Afghanistan in the Clinton era). Kosovo ended up forcing Milosevic to the negotiating table, but that took sustained bombing.
On the other hand, because of the reasons hoodie articulated, if I were in Congress, I might very well vote for the authorization. Not to do so would essentially render the Chemical Weapons Convention a nullity and would set a terrible precedent. And there is a certain level of trust one should give to our elected representatives (notwithstanding Iraq) on foreign policy. Right now, I’d be a no vote, but I suppose I would be persuadable to grant grudging acquiescence.
As to John’s post, it’s far better than last night’s, but the trolling with the blatant Iraq allusions (which he then denied) detract from it. If anything, John’s mindless trolling efforts have been convincing me that maybe I was wrong to oppose the proposed bombing in the first place. I’m still very doubtful though…
Cacti
@Lady Bug:
Sad but not entirely surprising. There are still holocaust deniers in the world. Some of them even had high paying jobs at NBC (Pat Buchanan).
patroclus
@Odie Hugh Manatee: The problem is that every war or proposed war is automatically viewed through the prism of the most recent one. That’s the reason for John’s constant allusions to Iraq – it’s completely understandable. The fact is though that all wars are different and should be considered on their own merits. I don’t think we’ve lost the moral ability to wage war because of Iraq, but I can understand why others think so. I think this one is most like Clinton’s bombing of Sudan and Afghanistan, which is why I’m doubtful, but if it really more like Kosovo, then I’d be more in favor of it.
Lady Bug
@Cacti:
True. Although I admit to sort of expecting that sort of racism/denialism from the far right, I was surprised when I first read the same denial coming from parts of the left (and of course there are leftists/socialists, etc who actively fight against the genocide denial fostered by Herman and co.)
Comrade Luke
@Gopher2b: I agree. This is the best solution I’ve heard, so I’m totally unsurprised that it’s being ignored here.
Odie Hugh Manatee
@patroclus:
Oh I understand that quite well, each ‘response’ (war, whatever short of) has unique circumstances surrounding it and there are those who view the current situation through jaded eyes because of a past situation. No prob with that. My questions are for those who argue that we have lost the right to respond. That argument is a dead end for everyone, literally.
I do find it interesting that John still insists on viewing history through recent events and not as something that should be taken as a whole. To me it reeks of someone taking the easy way out to reach a conclusion that fits what they really now believe. He once believed that the Iraq War was justified when it clearly wasn’t and now that we have a whole different situation he is knee-jerking the other direction due to having been burned in the past.
IMO, if you aren’t torn on a response to this then you aren’t doing it right.
Bob In Portland
@Bill E Pilgrim: This year is the fiftieth anniversary of the coup that put the military-industrial complex in charge of America. A President who crosses the CIA does so at his own peril.
myiq2xu
My, how times have changed.
FWIW – I agree with John Cole.
patroclus
@Comrade Luke: It’s not being ignored – in virtually every post, I’ve said I want us to actually go to the UN Security Council and shame the Russians (Adlai Stevenson-like) with real evidence. The problem, of course, is that Colin Powell did that with Iraq and lied through his teeth about EVERYTHING. The Obama administration is taking the attitude that that would accomplish nothing because the Russians are so recalcitrant. I think that is a mistake; good diplomacy can accomplish real results.
RandomMonster
@eemom:
Huh? I’m not trolling or being a dick, just mentioning that I was casting a vote to Cole’s original query without following a bunch of comments in the multiple of hundreds.
Lady Bug
@patroclus:
I agree. I do understand how and why Iraq is coloring/influencing how people see Syria, just as Vietnam colored/influenced how people initially saw America’s involvement in Bosnia and Somalia influenced are (lack) of desire to use military force, even through the UN to stop the Rwandan genocide. If Iraq has made us more cautious about using force, than good. At the same time, that doesn’t mean (IMHO) that we should never use force in any circumstances. There are a lot of shades of gray (would make a bad pun here, but I’m too lazy too) when it comes to Syria.
I do see the arguments made in good faith for both intervention and non intervention. I think for the most part, people on both sides of the divide want the same thing: a diplomatic peaceful settlement, an international court to try the perpetrators, aid to the refugees and less civilians being killed.
What I’m having a harder time dealing with are the at times blatant at times cryptic allegations that there was either no chemical attack or that somehow Obama is simply making it up in order to the country involved in another conflict. A conflict that btw, he’s been trying to avoid getting involved for the past two years.
Yes, I understand how Iraq makes people question U.S. intelligence but:
1. Syria isn’t Iraq
2. Obama isn’t Bush
3. the chemical attacks in Syria are not the fake Iraq WMD, fake stories of Kuwaiti babies being killed in 1991, or even the very real Anfal campaign atrocities which took pace 15 years before Iraq. This atrocity in Syria happened two weeks ago and we know who is responsible for it. To pretend it didn’t or that Obama is just another Bush, quite frankly is low and offensive.
Odie Hugh Manatee
@
myiq2xuGoatBoy:Well whaddya kno, it’s GoatBoy! Howya doin’ ya racist piece of PUMA shit?
RandomMonster
@Cacti:
Who’s saying that? Milosevic wasn’t captured immediately, and he didn’t give himself up out of conscience. My point is that there are multiple ways to address a war crime.
Lady Bug
@patroclus:
I don’t know if would have any effect, but I wonder if Obama will have a meeting with Putin when he’s in Russia?
It may not bring Russia and the U.S. any closer with regards to Syria, but at least we could say we tried. My hope of hopes is that there will be some sort of diplomatic solution, but that’s not realistic at all.
sparky
I say ‘get out of the fucking pulpit’ and STFU. Pass out smallpox infected blankets to all and call it a day. We, the US of A have no moral standing let alone national interest here.
Let the Syrians dance with the ones that brought them to this point. Not our business.
Lady Bug
@RandomMonster:
I’m actually not trying to come across as snarky or confrontational, but I genuinely want to know what other options are there? We already have sanctions, we don’t have any real sway over any of Syria’s sponsors (Russia, Iran). There doesn’t even seem to be any international will on behalf of anyone to establishing an ad hoc international criminal court for Syria, a la, Bosnia and Rwanda.
Thanks
GregB
Sadly this round of war mongering has the 2004 Democratic nominee sounding like Botox Bob.
I am of the school that this will turn into a massive cluster fuck. More cluster fucky than it is now and before it is over it will have expanded well beyond the borders of Syria.
eemom
@RandomMonster:
I was being sincere, damn it.
I wish I had better sense than to waste my time on this blog.
LiberalTarian
@Chris Bannister:
Ah, those halcyon days when we were all freaked out about GW. It was easier then to stake out territory and push back.
Obama isn’t the lightning rod for the left that GW was. We get tired of fighting among ourselves I guess. Watch more TV.
I started reading Balloon Juice about the time GWs administration outed Plame (pre dem JC). The commentariat has definitely changed, old regulars gone and new regulars taken their place. It’s still the blog I read most often. Wait, it’s practically the only blog I still read. People change, you know? It’s all good. I still like it here. Don’t read the comments so much anymore.
But on topic–my gut says no more intervention. It’s like the US can’t get enough of it–tweaking the stability of the Middle East seems like a monkey on our back. If we were going to intervene it should have been months ago, but we balked. Enough.
No great analysis here, just war fatigue.
Just Some Fuckhead, Thought Leader
Jesus God, I haven’t seen a trainwreck like this thread since before Stuck went to the big blog in the sky.
Lady Bug
@Just Some Fuckhead, Thought Leader:
The OP insinuating that the chemical attacks never happened not withstanding, I actually thought it was one of the better Syria threads compared to previous ones on this site. Of course, I do tend to skim/skip over troll posts, so what do I know?
Jinchi
@Odie Hugh Manatee:
No. I think the argument is that America can’t credibly claim that we are sending a message that the use of chemical weapons is intolerable. The message that we are actually sending is that it’s okay for our friends to use chemical weapons and an offense against the world for our enemies to do so.
We are considering an attack on Syria because we believe it will be easy, because we consider Assad an enemy, and because we don’t believe he can strike back at us. We would not be targeting the Syrian rebels if we discovered the situation was reversed and we would not be cavalierly discussing “limited strikes” against an opponent who could respond in kind.
So it stands to reason that if we really want to send a message that the world will not tolerate the chemical weapon attacks we should be considering punishments that could be applied against anyone who violated the treaty. The Hague option may not give the immediate satisfaction that a few colorful explosions would, but it’s a much better deterrent in the long run.
AxelFoley
@hoodie:
Damn, this was epic.
RandomMonster
@Lady Bug:
I’m saying there aren’t a lot of other options at the moment, but governments could work toward achieving that. Milosevic wasn’t captured and tried overnight, but his crimes were ethnic cleansing and genocide. If Assad is a murderer using chemical weapons, can’t we try him before the world rather than just make a feeble attempt at bombing him which will probably have no real result in stopping his criminal activities?
RandomMonster
@eemom:
Sincerely being an asshat? Sincerely attacking someone for just making a minor who-gives-a-fuck point?
I wish you had the better sense to masturbate offline.
eemom
@RandomMonster:
well ok, I guess you were right the first time. GFY.
Odie Hugh Manatee
@Jinchi: “No. I think the argument is that America can’t credibly claim that we are sending a message that the use of chemical weapons is intolerable.”
So we can’t send a credible message ever again or is it just this time?
“We are considering an attack on Syria because we believe it will be easy…”
You think Obama wants to do this because it’s easy? You didn’t vote for him, did you?
@AxelFoley:
John should nail it to his forehead. Two nails ought to do it.
John S.
@Just Some Fuckhead, Thought Leader:
That was bound to happen after Cole alluded to Iraq yet again, feigned ignorance and then bravely ran away.
The fish stinks from the head.
JW
What bid’ness do we have in Syria? None, I think. Let those folk figure it out for themselves as we did.
sherparick
I can’t think of any really valid arguments unless one adopts a theory of imperialism. Of course, imperialism when you come down to it is arm robbery or extortion on a national scale (you do what we want or give us what we want or else cruise missiles start dropping on you like hail in a thunderstorm). The best argument would be defense of others who could not defend themselves, but what is being proposed does not seem to do that effectively and meanwhile threatens to further unleash the furies.
rp
@Chris Bannister: Best post in the thread by far.
brantl
Reasons to strike against the Assad regime:
The gassed their own people with poison gas, what would be a war crime, even if they did it to a foreign, invading army.
We claim to care about war crimes.
Russia has stymied the UN, from doing anything about war crimes, in this regard, much as we have stymied them from doing anything about Israel’s war crimes. .
Can’t we actually give a shit about somebody doing something greivously wrong, without it having to be about us?
This would be the first time that we actually behaved as we claim to be behaving, as a leader of the countries that want to work as the world’s policing agents We’ve claimed that was what we were doing forever, but we’ve only done it when we had our own country’s interests at stack.
The main reason that we should be willing to stop Assad’s chemical warfare on his own people is because what he is doing is patently wrong, and psychotic, and further below any standard of human behavior than anyone should have to live (or die) through.
If the US doesn’t show some leadership on this, and help stop this bastard from these crimes, then I think we should shut up about “making the world safe for democracy”, or “leading on human rights” or any of that high-flown shit we keep ladling out to the world. If anybody wants to understand what people think of the United States, all they need to see is the difference between what we say, and what we actually do. This is put up or shut up time, people.
Don’t misunderstand me, I am against war, always. I am, however, not against punishing monsters, wherever they may be found. We do need the U.N. evidence for the poison gas. If that is consistent with Assad as a war criminal, knowck out all the chemical production faciltiies, and anywhere you have a reasonable certainty that you would kill Assad himself.
brantl
@gussie: Blow him up.
ChrisNYC
@Chris Bannister: Absolutely true.
Thlayli
@Keith G:
Minor point: the Rosenbergs were executed by electric chair.
Major point: the Rosenbergs were tried and convicted of espionage. They weren’t charged with treason because at the time they did it the Soviet Union was our ally.
libarbarian
Because Pew! Pew! Pew! …. Murica!
Jinchi
@Odie Hugh Manatee:
I’m saying that attacking Syria does not send the message you claim it does. American politicians have been banging the war drums against Syria for years. No one outside the U.S. will interpret this as anything other than a convenient excuse to bomb yet another Middle Eastern country.
We are doing this because it’s easy and because there is a very open lobby for war in this region. You obsess about the distinction between Bush and Obama. Foreigners don’t see that distinction. The message we are sending is that our adversaries had better get very strong, very quickly.
And in fact, I did vote for him. Like many, I picked him over Clinton because she was far too ready to support stupid wars.
Original Lee
I have been in training for the last six weeks and therefore haven’t been keeping up much with the news. So I suspect I’m about as informed as the average American voter at this point.
If I could magically impose my will on the U.S. response to Syria, it would look something like this:
1. Humanitarian aid for the refugees.
2. Destruction of the chemical weapons plants.
3. Deportation of Assad and his minions to The Hague for trial for crimes against humanity.
4. Otherwise, stay out of Syria’s business completely, unless we are able to identify a stable rebel group that looks as if it has it together enough to become the next government, in which case we give it support (cash, or weapons, or tech).
Unlikely to happen, but a person can dream.
Jinchi
@brantl:
Launching cruise missiles at a foreign country is an act of war. If you think it’s justified, you are not always against war.
Parrotlover77
As much as I disagree with you on drones and snowden is how much I agree with you on this, Cole. Btw, this post was far less trolly than a lot of your previous strong opinion posts, ignoring the weird title. You are making progress…
All that said, Obama going to Congress was just awesome in so many ways,.so fucking kudos AGAIN to Obama for trying AGAIN to set an example for how a president should go about presidentin’. As a good liberal I’m obligated to say “he’s not perfect” at this point but fuck if he isn’t pretty awesome even when I completely disagree with him.
hrumpole
Is anyone concerned by the fact that this language doesn’t limit the president at all? The bill says
7 (a) AUTHORIZATION.—The President is authorized,
8 subject to subsection (b), to use the Armed Forces of the
9 United States as the President determines to be necessary
10 and appropriate in a limited and specified manner
If it said “and appropriate, in a limited and specified manner” instead then there’s an argument that Congress intends some “objective” measure of limited. But without the comma, the statute could be read (and is probably intended) to allow whatever the president thinks is limited and specified. When you combine it with a directive to prevent anyone from getting WMD, that’s a license to go into a country pretty deep. Not that I blame them for including it given the impeachment-itis that the teahadists have, but once it’s passed the president can do whatever he thinks is legal.
LT
@AxelFoley: “This is a gigantic game of chicken with a psychopath”
But he poured the wine for Therese Kerry so politely!