I read on another thread that my dear friend the Goblin wished to discuss this issue, so here we go.
Talking points:
1. Should President Obama have committed forces without consulting Congress, such has been done in most conflicts since World War II?
2. Should the United States intervene on the basis of the alleged use of Chemical Weapons?
3. Does the lack of international support impact the validity of United States pending intervention?
Discuss.
1. Should President Obama have committed forces without consulting Congress, such has been done in most conflicts since World War II?
No, consulting Congress is a valuable safeguard to minimize excessive use of force. Unlike the President, we have better access to our Representatives and Senators. As such, the general feeling of the voters can be taken into account. A number of polls show the majority of citizens do not support an attack on Syria and that needs to be taken into account.
2. Should the United States intervene on the basis of the alleged use of Chemical Weapons?
I am against intervening in Syria unless it is part of UN action.
3. Does the lack of international support impact the validity of United States pending intervention?
Absolutely, without UN support if we attack we are doing the same thing as any of the rogue nations we condemn.
I read on another thread that my dear friend the Goblin wished to discuss this issue, so here we go.
Talking points:
1. Should President Obama have committed forces without consulting Congress, such has been done in most conflicts since World War II?
Best: Getting a yes vote from congress
Middle: Doing it without consulting congress
Worst: Getting a no vote and then doing it anyway.
People are going to be grarging over obama whatever he does. Remember, he's he nations first atheist muslim communist fascist spineless dictator.
2. Should the United States intervene on the basis of the alleged use of Chemical Weapons?
I think we're passing the point of reasonable doubt here. Yes. The potential for abuse of chemical weapons is insane. Discouraging Asaad and the next generation of Asaads from doing it again is worth the cost of a few missles that we've already bought anyway.
3. Does the lack of international support impact the validity of United States pending intervention?
No. I think an action stands on its own regardless of its legality, especially in something as nebulous as international law. I can understand the other nations feeling burned by our takeover of Iraq.
Of our options, i think a limited intervention is the least bad bad option.
Thank you, Comrade Barrister, although, now that the moment has come, I don't really have much to say. I was just more amazed that this subject (and the other one) hadn't been brought up yet, but maybe people are taking a break from politrolling.
I am totally opposed to any armed American intervention into Syria as I am sure nobody will be surprised to discover.
In addition to sharing Comrade Jeff's confusion about why killing people with chemical weapons is so much worse than killing them the old fashioned way (or, more to the point, with drones), I am confused about the intellectual soundness of punishing Assad for killing his own people by dropping bombs on his people.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
There is no friendly faction in Syria that would step in even if we did attack the regime. At least no friendly faction with a majority. Way too many terrorist affilated groups are part of the rebellion, and more keep showing up every day. If anything I'd say we provide support for Isreal and Turkey to keep it from spilling over into their borders and wait until things calm down.
Can a surgical strike take out the chemical weapons power of the Syrian regime? Unlikely, we gave them too much warning and the landscape offers lots of hiding places. At most we knock out some support super structure and a year later chemical weapons get used again.
It gets worse if Russia and/or China keeps pumping money into the region. We could turn a already horrible civil war into a regional one.
I can't see a win any way I look at this.
Sure, I want to punish the use of Chemical weapons, but Syria is a mess right now. The best we can do is collect evidence, save the civilians we can, and then go after them once the fighting ends.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Let me guess, the US has supported Assad "to maintain peace in the region", just like they have supported all the other cute little dictators and mass murderers in the region, and not excluding such people as Al-Qaeda. These people in turn came about as a result of interfering with the social development and democratic progress that could have turned the region into a civilized one and not an oppressed s%+!hole of violence and ignorance. Every time the US dodges one international crisis by destabilizing a country, guess what? Twenty years on, that crisis has evolved into a far worse one, and will both cost more and be more difficult to deal with. Not to mention human suffering on an incomprehensible scale, the very real risk of the entire West falling into tyranny because of the measures taken to parry more and more diffuse, but always acute and horrible, threats. It is... pretty much like a massive greek tragedy. Now, there is an acute and terrible crisis in Syria! Let's all see America barge in there too! And then, when the country has been bombed to rubble by bombs paid for by an even larger share of the American economy, THAT is when the shady dealings for the future of the country can be set up properly, so that the US can profit for a number of years to come. Sure, in twenty years or so, those very deals will create a NEW, WORSE CRISIS, but that's for later...
Don't. Chemical weapons is just an excuse. With Saddam it was Weapons of Mass Distraction. The US has done enough. As much as it pains me and every sensible human being, the American track record in these things is miserable. You've done quite enough.
Can a surgical strike take out the chemical weapons power of the Syrian regime? Unlikely, we gave them too much warning and the landscape offers lots of hiding places. At most we knock out some support super structure and a year later chemical weapons get used again.
We can take out the delivery systems though (planes and missiles)
So, to "preserve the peace in the region" and "stabilize Syria", you are going to support the US doing another of its magnificent rogue actions, no matter that each earlier one has lead to crap after s$%* after horror. And hey, the current crisis is ACUTE and HORRIBLE! The surrounding countries don't have tents to put the refugees in! Sounds good. At least people are learning, eh?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am confused about the intellectual soundness of punishing Assad for killing his own people by dropping bombs on his people.
I have seen this brought up more than once. The idea is not to drop bombs on just anyone. The idea would be a limited strike against specific military targets. The questions I have are, which targets and what do we hope to accomplish by this?
Just War doctrine gives certain conditions for the legitimate exercise of force, all of which must be met:
"1. the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
2. all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
3. there must be serious prospects of success;
4. the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition"
Libya, yes... and Iraq. And Afghanistan. And Egypt. Just to mention the latest round of misery. Go back a while, and there is Bosnia, which, having been made a "UN protectorate" showed itself to be a hotbed of bribes, lawlessness, corruption, and all things nice. I guess... maybe... after the fighting was done, certain deals were made... that would bring profit to the US for a number of years...
If I didn't know better, I could begin to think that maybe, somewhere, just maybe, there were American (and other) military decision-makers that WANTED unstable regions that would come to end up in ACUTE, HORRIBLE CRISES that would necessitate military intervention in the future...
Nah. It's obviously a ridiculous idea.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am confused about the intellectual soundness of punishing Assad for killing his own people by dropping bombs on his people.I have seen this brought up more than once. The idea is not to drop bombs on just anyone. The idea would be a limited strike against specific military targets. The questions I have are, which targets and what do we hope to accomplish by this?
"Precise" drone strikes have killed, what? 200+ children? Who-knows-how- many hundreds of civilians?
I am pretty cynical about the US's ability to carry out limited strikes against specific military targets.
This one isn't ours. I'm not sure of the early post-colonial history, though I'm sure European powers played a role in screwing them up too. And before that it was the Ottomans.
Syria was France's baby, although, fun fact: the CIA's track record of engineered coups started in 1949 with the accession to power of one Husni al-Zaim.
He was toppled pretty quickly, however.
|
|
I am confused about the intellectual soundness of punishing Assad for killing his own people by dropping bombs on his people.I have seen this brought up more than once. The idea is not to drop bombs on just anyone. The idea would be a limited strike against specific military targets. The questions I have are, which targets and what do we hope to accomplish by this?
"Precise" drone strikes have killed, what? 200+ children? Who-knows-how- many hundreds of civilians?
I am pretty cynical about the US's ability to carry out limited strikes against specific military targets.
As well you should be. Killing should never be easy. Which leads to the second part of what I wrote. What would we be accomplishing? If all we did was bomb a few places but failed to eliminate the group causing the problem, we wasted lives and for no real reason. Plus with the attitude of Putin, that he will defend Syria as he has yet to have any proof, though we are long past reasonable doubt, we could potentially have a much bigger issue in a wanna be Dr. Doom.
Just wanted to mock the idea of a limited American strike against military targets.
1. Should President Obama have committed forces without consulting Congress, such has been done in most conflicts since World War II?
He should not have commited forces without congressional support. Though he should have got it when he first drew that little red line. Now any air strikes will be as useful as targetting dessert with the strikes.
2. Should the United States intervene on the basis of the alleged use of Chemical Weapons?
Only if the UN supports it. It is the UN's rule after all about 'No Chemical weapons after all.
3. Does the lack of international support impact the validity of United States pending intervention?
No not really.
Some added thoughts...
So the party who is the biggest opponent to the Death Penalty is going to authorize strikes again people who are innocent of the crime that is causing us to strike....sound pretty odd.
Personaly I think all that is going to happen is we launch some miisiles at some very empty buildings...Obama declares victory...Take That Assad...declares the War against Chemical Weapons over...and GM is alive...and maybe Assad will massarce is people in a more...Politcal Correct way...like machetes...or hanging.
|
|
We should absolutely attack!!! What better excuse is there to steal resources, make backroom arms deals, and figure out what drugs we might to import via the CIA! When it starts going down though we certainly need about 10-20% of our total troops to be hired Mercs so when innocent civilians end up raped and murdered we can "investigate" them and take no heat ourselves.
Why even have a foreign policy if all you do is sh!t on the world......
Personaly I think all that is going to happen is we launch some miisiles at some very empty buildings...Obama declares victory...Take That Assad...declares the War against Chemical Weapons over...and GM is alive...and maybe Assad will massarce is people in a more...Politcal Correct way...like machetes...or hanging.
Or white phosphorous rounds...or depleted uranium shells...
"That guy is carrying something on his back! KILL HIM!!!"
"Okay, he's down. Someone is trying to get him into a car. Two of those seem to be children."
"KILL THEM!!!"
"AWWWW but it's so difficult to tell if you haven't been there you don't know it's all regrettable with collateral damage and sure that was the ONLY time this happened honest blah blah blah, funny that just that one leaked..."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think we're passing the point of reasonable doubt here. Yes. The potential for abuse of chemical weapons is insane. Discouraging Asaad and the next generation of Asaads from doing it again is worth the cost of a few missles that we've already bought anyway.
Estimated number of humans killed during the Syrian civil war: 100,000
Estimated number killed by Chemical Weapons: 1000Intervening in Syria because they've used the wrong kind of weapons to kill 1% of their victims seems obtuse in the extreme.
Chemical weapons allow for
-A higher death toll
-A faster death toll
-A less discriminant way of killing
-A cheaper death toll
-More death than you can afford with other means.
We're intervening so that the numbers don't become 100,000 by conventional weaponry and 200,000 by chemical. Nothing obtuse about it.
Just wanted to mock the idea of a limited American strike against military targets.
Fine!!
|
|
Oh and hey, let's just totally take our "proof" of chemical weapon usage as a gospel truth. I mean what reason would rebels have to make it look like chemical weapon attacks on civilians happened, especially on a day when the UN officials just happen to show up to snoop around. That would only draw people to their side and try to force an intervention by the "good guys". I am absolutely sure that the Syrian government is stupid enough to make such a huge error in judgement as to do such a vile and obviously evil act at such a horrible time for them to do it.
To some, US case for Syrian gas attack, strike has too many holes
I'm not sure, but I'm under the impression that McClatchy isn't a mouthpiece for Putin, nor a bunch of paranoid, conspiracy-minded ultra-lefts. But I could be wrong.
|
|
To some, US case for Syrian gas attack, strike has too many holes
I'm not sure, but I'm under the impression that McClatchy isn't a mouthpiece for Putin, nor a bunch of paranoid, conspiracy-minded ultra-lefts. But I could be wrong.
Hey when did I suddenly become a Commie? Apparently I switched over somewhere along the way since I seem to agree with most of Comrade Ankie's musings lately....
I wish we would stop policing the world and get a handle on our own backyard.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If the US stopped playing war in other countries, you could afford lots of stuff you want... such as jobs, salaries, education, infrastructure, investment, health care... Nah. It's cooler to kill people. Let's do war instead, eh?
|
|
If the US stopped playing war in other countries, you could afford lots of stuff you want... such as jobs, salaries, education, infrastructure, investment, health care... Nah. It's cooler to kill people. Let's do war instead, eh?
Where do normal, non-living in a compound in Texas surrounded by an arsenal of 15 year old military equipment toters, people go to join the revolution? I can't seem to find the line.
Hey when did I suddenly become a Commie? Apparently I switched over somewhere along the way since I seem to agree with most of Comrade Ankie's musings lately....
Welcome to the party, comrade.
[Bubble bubble bubble]'s over to the left, dice are to the right, and willing and nubile groupies of either gender are down the hall.
|
|
Hey when did I suddenly become a Commie? Apparently I switched over somewhere along the way since I seem to agree with most of Comrade Ankie's musings lately....
Welcome to the party, comrade.
[Bubble bubble bubble]'s over to the left, dice are to the right, and willing and nubile groupies of either gender are down the hall.
Either gender?!?! Cool...I'll take a Halle Berry and a Mathew McCon to go. *Toke, toke, tokkkkke*
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You know, sometimes you're damned if you do, and damned if you don't. The US gets slammed no matter what course is taken. That's what happens when you're supposedly the sole remaining super power.
The only reason this is even an issue is because of US policy statements that never should have been made in the first place.
The proper way for the US to evaluate what action to take in Syria is to ask the following questions:
1. Is there a direct threat to the USA's national security or the security of key allies?
2. Is there a moral imperative to intervene for humanitarian reasons?
Since #1 is hard to justify, the current justification is coming from #2. The problem with 2's justification is that the rebels don't seem to be any more concerned with human rights or the sanctity of human life than Assad himself. So the risk of intervention is very similar to what happened in Libya and Egypt, which is that the USA will end up having backed a regime that was no better, and potentially far worse, than what they deposed.
I've opposed almost all US interventions in my adult life. Usually I've opposed them because the USA no longer has the will to do what is required to make interventions work, and so they are done in a half-assed manner and as soon as an opportunity to cut and run pops up, the troops are sent home, usually leaving a mess behind.
I oppose this one on those same grounds. If the US intervenes it will be poorly planned, poorly executed, incomplete and the end result will be that we will weaken our strategic position in the region.
But unfortunately that's not how politicians make decisions.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Aside from being more indiscriminate, none of your listed reasons are actually true.
Chemical weapons are very fiddly to make, difficult to store and use and very tricksy in the field.
Which only leads to expense if you care about the people storing and moving your weapons and those around where they're deployed. I don't think any of those are a problem for Aasad.
You also ignored faster. They killed between 500 1,400 people in one day, considerably faster than the conflict in general.
All of which make them expensive. If you absolutely want a value for money when it comes to killing, pick a machete (cf: Rwanda) or pick an AK-47.
The problem with taking out 100,000 people with machetes and AK 47's is that you need 50,000 people under your control more willing to point the weapons away from you than towards you. With a mechanized killing factory you need control over a smaller number of people and facilities.
So why are we against "chemical weapons" - by this I mean pretty much poison gas, rather than the more acceptable White Phospour, Napalm and depleted uranium?
Because conventional war is a game we can't loose. You can't invade the US with planes tanks and automobiles. You can;t resist a us invasion with planes tanks and automobiles. As long as war is planes tanks and automobiles we can't loose and we can't even be seriously hurt.
If they start using chemical weapons on each other, it won't be long till they start using them on us. They want to nip it in the bud before it gets to that point, and I think Assad deserves a daisy cutter to the head anyway.
If you think we have some ulterior motive here I'm listening. I don't see a play that gets us the nice stable friendly dictator of our choosing here, so whats our real motive with this?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you think we have some ulterior motive here I'm listening. I don't see a play that gets us the nice stable friendly dictator of our choosing here, so whats our real motive with this?
There's a lot of debate on the far left about this, but here's an interesting piece by Edward Luttwalk:
"ON Wednesday, reports surfaced of a mass chemical-weapons attack in the Damascus suburbs that human rights activists claim killed hundreds of civilians, bringing Syria’s continuing civil war back onto the White House’s foreign policy radar, even as the crisis in Egypt worsens.
"But the Obama administration should resist the temptation to intervene more forcefully in Syria’s civil war. A victory by either side would be equally undesirable for the United States.
"At this point, a prolonged stalemate is the only outcome that would not be damaging to American interests." (Emphasis added)
"Indeed, it would be disastrous if President Bashar al-Assad’s regime were to emerge victorious after fully suppressing the rebellion and restoring its control over the entire country. Iranian money, weapons and operatives and Hezbollah troops have become key factors in the fighting, and Mr. Assad’s triumph would dramatically affirm the power and prestige of Shiite Iran and Hezbollah, its Lebanon-based proxy — posing a direct threat both to the Sunni Arab states and to Israel.
"But a rebel victory would also be extremely dangerous for the United States and for many of its allies in Europe and the Middle East. That’s because extremist groups, some identified with Al Qaeda, have become the most effective fighting force in Syria. If those rebel groups manage to win, they would almost certainly try to form a government hostile to the United States. Moreover, Israel could not expect tranquillity on its northern border if the jihadis were to triumph in Syria."
This part is pretty good, too:
"Maintaining a stalemate should be America’s objective. And the only possible method for achieving this is to arm the rebels when it seems that Mr. Assad’s forces are ascendant and to stop supplying the rebels if they actually seem to be winning.
This strategy actually approximates the Obama administration’s policy so far."
Either gender?!?! Cool...I'll take a Halle Berry and a Mathew McCon to go. *Toke, toke, tokkkkke*
Alas, neither Halle nor Matthew are among the groupies. :(
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Let's assume, just to be maximally charitable, that Assad did the chemical weapons strike.
Any attempt to punish Assad for using chemical weapons will involve killing large numbers of civilians, something he wouldn't mind at all. That's how cruise missiles, drone strikes, and honestly military intervention in general work. (We'll kill some low-ranking military people too, I suppose. They at least signed on for the in harm's way business.) So we propose to punish a guy for murdering a bunch of his people by murdering a bunch more of his people. On the theory that, maybe, even if it does not deter him it will deter others from using chemical weapons if they know that the US and UK will totally have their backs and help them with the killing by other means.
There are, of course, far less destructive means to accomplish that goal unless the assembling of large piles of corpses is an indispensable part of the plan. We could, for example, have a precision-target strike to kidnap Assad and haul his ass to the Hague. That would, I know, be hard. But isn't minimizing the number of innocent people we kill worth a little difficulty? A CIA agent with a garrote, if our bloodlust really has to be sated, works just as well. Either one of those would actually serve as a potential deterrent, as they would make it clear to the actual policymakers that their personal safety is at stake if they go chemical.
I don't support either of these options, but they are both much less murderous in design and probably in execution and the killing involved in both would be targeted at actual belligerents rather than poor bastards with the wrong street address.
Or we could do something really crazy and try to do the best we can with a very bad situation. Given the practical constraints and the profound limitations of military solutions, nations of good conscience should do all they can to facilitate the evacuation of Syria and the resettling of its refugees in some safe, decent place where they can, with the help of their new hosts, rebuild their lives. We couldn't save everyone, I know. Not everyone would have the means to leave or be in a place where they were able. Not everyone would want to leave. But for those who just want a stable, decent, freer society we have plenty of wealthy nations that should be happy to help them out and go on crowing about how virtuous they are for doing it.
It wouldn't be cheap and there would be difficulties in implementation, but I bet the long term cost would be a lot less than the blood and treasure of a war.
This will not happen.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Go back a while, and there is Bosnia, which, having been made a "UN protectorate" showed itself to be a hotbed of bribes, lawlessness, corruption, and all things nice.
I want you to think about this REAL hard. Are you claiming the region of Bosnia was somehow a beacon of civil rights and public safety during any of the previous... 100 years? When exactly do you think the last 10 year period where people weren't worried about mass killings or being picked up by the secret police, or trying to avoid contact with the most recent group of invaders was?
During the 19th century they had clashes between revolutionaries and the Ottomans every 15-20 years. Then you've got the first Balkan War in 1912, which rolled straight into WWI. There was assassination and political strife during the 20's and 30's. Then in the 40's you've got WWII.
Between 1945 and 1950, the government arrested 5 million people.
Then a political shift happened in the 60's, giving authority to the Albanians, continuing ethnic divisions.
Don't forget, the Yugoslav wars started in 1991, 7 years prior to UN bombing.
But you think the UN caused all the problems?
I think a bomb to his swimming pool and airfields would kill fewer people than a garotte to his neck. Killing him creates a vacuum to be filled by various competing generals and the rebels fighting in a freefall. If we wanted to (as the goblin's sources suggested) turn this into a longer brouhaha that seems to be the way to go.
Go back a while, and there is Bosnia, which, having been made a "UN protectorate" showed itself to be a hotbed of bribes, lawlessness, corruption, and all things nice.I want you to think about this REAL hard. Are you claiming the region of Bosnia was somehow a beacon of civil rights and public safety during any of the previous... 100 years? When exactly do you think the last 10 year period where people weren't worried about mass killings or being picked up by the secret police, or trying to avoid contact with the most recent group of invaders was?
Anecdotal, I know, but I work with a lady who grew up in Sarajevo, and as a child had to routinely dodge snipers on the street if she were to go out of doors.
She says she's a fan of the U.S.'s intervention there anyway.
If the US stopped playing war in other countries, you could afford lots of stuff you want... such as jobs, salaries, education, infrastructure, investment, health care... Nah. It's cooler to kill people. Let's do war instead, eh?
Yeeep.
And all this talk of aiding the Syrian rebels, which are mostly Islamist militants from outside of Syria, begs the question - is the U.S allying with the terrorists now? Good guy buddies for life?
I don't want to come off as defending the UN, they've got lots of problems and are often very ineffective. But saying that it was UN intervention that made Bosnia a bad place to live is laughable at best.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If the US stopped playing war in other countries, you could afford lots of stuff you want... such as jobs, salaries, education, infrastructure, investment, health care... Nah. It's cooler to kill people. Let's do war instead, eh?Yeeep.
And all this talk of aiding the Syrian rebels, which are mostly Islamist militants from outside of Syria, begs the question. Is the U.S allying with the terrorists now? Good guy buddies for life?
Because that worked so well last time.
History doesn't repeat itself but it sure does rhyme a lot.
:D
Indeed. Worst war 2013. Do not join. Not even to shoot up some Ba'athists.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I read on another thread that my dear friend the Goblin wished to discuss this issue, so here we go.
Talking points:
1. Should President Obama have committed forces without consulting Congress, such has been done in most conflicts since World War II?
2. Should the United States intervene on the basis of the alleged use of Chemical Weapons?
3. Does the lack of international support impact the validity of United States pending intervention?
Discuss.
1. No, I don't like policing the world. They don't want our help and I don't want us to spend the money.
2. No.
3. No.
I'm very torn on this. On the one hand, I'm not happy about any war and this does have the potential to make things worse. On the other, things there are already pretty bad and getting worse. Unlike Iraq, we're not taking a stable, if oppressive state and wrecking it. It's already pretty wrecked.
I think going to Congress is the right thing to do. There isn't the kind of urgency that would justify the President ordering attacks on his own. And it's great fun to read conservative pundits simultaneously bash Obama for ruling unconstitutionally and for being so weak and passing the buck to Congress.
I am a little confused on why killing people with chemical weapons is so much worse then killing them the old fashioned way. It would be one thing if the scale was dramatically different.
The justification of the difference between chemical and conventional weaponry is twofold for what it's worth. 1st: The Geneva Convention on the Rules of War prohibit it, which was heavily ratified. 2nd: Chemical weapons are considered nondiscriminate weapons for their easy potential to shift to civilians via uncontrollable forces like wind.
(That's the justification anyway, but I think your point is a little broader in the sense that dead people are dead no matter how they got that way. I think that is a valid point.)