|
What I think is very sad is that Putin very obviously just bided his time waiting for an opportunity to step in when the Obama administration gave him an opportunity, and Kerry stepped right in it today.
Part of me wants to say "well, what do I care if Putin gets the credit if we stop a war?" But part of me still cringes at the sheer incompetence and buffoonery our "leaders" have put on display the last few weeks.
I mean wow.
Well...
Putin fully believes in the war on Terrorism. He is dealing with an actual muslim insurrection in his borders and wants every secular strongman he can get in power, or if that is not available to keep the ire focused on the west and not at the big country on the same landmass that is killing Chechnyan's.
Putin looks at Assad as someone who will keep the Islamists contained, because Syria ain't that far from Russia when you look at a map.
What I think is very sad is that Putin very obviously just bided his time waiting for an opportunity to step in when the Obama administration gave him an opportunity, and Kerry stepped right in it today.
Part of me wants to say "well, what do I care if Putin gets the credit if we stop a war?" But part of me still cringes at the sheer incompetence and buffoonery our "leaders" have put on display the last few weeks.
I mean wow.
Well...
Putin fully believes in the war on Terrorism. He is dealing with an actual muslim insurrection in his borders and wants every secular strongman he can get in power, or if that is not available to keep the ire focused on the west and not at the big country on the same landmass that is killing Chechnyan's.
Putin looks at Assad as someone who will keep the Islamists contained, because Syria ain't that far from Russia when you look at a map.
Again, I agree with you ciretose. Putin is playing this as a national security issue, which it really is for Russia. I think he is seething at the Obama administration's bungling of this which has put his own plans at risk. In fact the US support of the rebels has been a point of contention between the US and Russia for quite a while.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm just baffled by how people so easily assume the US' evidence is conclusive of much.
The US even admits their evidence isn't solid, not that that prevents them from saying "everybody knows Assad did it".
they've dialed back on claiming the "history of doctoring intercepts" Israeli intercept proves anything,
with their supposed synopsis being that Syrian CW director was shocked and outraged at a use of CW, and didn't claim the guy on other end said he used CW. The "movements and preparation" story is exacty what they have reported on other occasions months ago, no red line was crossed then apparently. The "artillery shells shot 90 minutes before" is kind of a joke, there's a civil war, shooting artillery shells is par for course, and nothing to do with CW particularly given the time discrepancy. The idea that rebels "couldn't possibly have" used CW because they don't have the capability conflicts with the rebels and CIA's own opinion on that topic.
Of course, that goes along with few in the sway of western mainstream media questioning the US' illegal arming of "rebels" which AFAIK does not even have Congressional authorization.
"Long live the Axis of Freedom! Thanks for the offer to pay for the bombs, Prince Turki!"
As a citizen of the USA I have to say that there is very little that my country has done in the course of history that I find as despicable as these drone attacks and the cruise missile joystick barrages that previous Presidents employed.The bombings are small potatoes.
I mean off the top of my head
a 400* years genocide of the native american populations, including biological warfare, rape, genocide, starvation, treaty violations. (* the constitution was more of a rearranging of existing governments rather than making something new)
Dousing vietnam and our own soldiers in agent orange.
Going to war for Dole fruit in south america
overthrowing democratically elected leaders in south america for being too liberal
carpet bombing civilians and bulldozing viliages in vietnam (the entire war itself was a big why the hell?)
Our brutal conquest of the philipines.
The legal importation and selling of human beings and their deplorable treatment under slavery.
I mean really, I don't think the bombings merit a blip on the US's evilometer.
Why you gotta bring up old s&#+?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm just baffled by how people so easily assume the US' evidence is conclusive of much.
The US even admits their evidence isn't solid, not that that prevents them from saying "everybody knows Assad did it".
they've dialed back on claiming the "history of doctoring intercepts" Israeli intercept proves anything,
with their supposed synopsis being that Syrian CW director was shocked and outraged at a use of CW, and didn't claim the guy on other end said he used CW. The "movements and preparation" story is exacty what they have reported on other occasions months ago, no red line was crossed then apparently. The "artillery shells shot 90 minutes before" is kind of a joke, there's a civil war, shooting artillery shells is par for course, and nothing to do with CW particularly given the time discrepancy. The idea that rebels "couldn't possibly have" used CW because they don't have the capability conflicts with the rebels and CIA's own opinion on that topic.
Of course, that goes along with few in the sway of western mainstream media questioning the US' illegal arming of "rebels" which AFAIK does not even have Congressional authorization.
"Long live the Axis of Freedom! Thanks for the offer to pay for the bombs, Prince Turki!"
See? Non walls of text are fun, too!
|
|
Again, I agree with you ciretose. Putin is playing this as a national security issue, which it really is for Russia. I think he is seething at the Obama administration's bungling of this which has put his own plans at risk. In fact the US support of the rebels has been a point of contention between the US and Russia for quite a while.What I think is very sad is that Putin very obviously just bided his time waiting for an opportunity to step in when the Obama administration gave him an opportunity, and Kerry stepped right in it today.
Part of me wants to say "well, what do I care if Putin gets the credit if we stop a war?" But part of me still cringes at the sheer incompetence and buffoonery our "leaders" have put on display the last few weeks.
I mean wow.
Well...
Putin fully believes in the war on Terrorism. He is dealing with an actual muslim insurrection in his borders and wants every secular strongman he can get in power, or if that is not available to keep the ire focused on the west and not at the big country on the same landmass that is killing Chechnyan's.
Putin looks at Assad as someone who will keep the Islamists contained, because Syria ain't that far from Russia when you look at a map.
I think he is playing good cop bad cop. It is just odd for us to visualize Putin as good cop and Obama as bad cop.
There's a lot of demonizing of Putin by people who want to hem and haw about Obama (I think they both suck), but it still looks to me like Russia is seething at how they were hoodwinked about the "no-fly" authorization vote in the UN being turned into "bomb the f+$$ing shiznit out of Libya."
As if Russia and China are the only parties that exercise their veto powers at the UN...
I'm not sure what is so unfathomable about a position that simply stands for rigorous application of international law.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Goodies...
1982 Prohibition of chemical and bacteriological weapons.
1986 Calls on all governments (including the United States) to observe international law.
1987 Measures to prevent international terrorism, study the underlying political and economic causes of terrorism, convene a conference to define terrorism and to differentiate it from the struggle of people from national liberation.
1989 Opposing the acquisition of territory by force.
2001 To set up the International Criminal Court.
2007 Calls for a convention against female descrimination.
2007 Concerning the rights of children.
2007 Concerning the right to food.
2008 Condemns racial descrimination.
2008 Calls for a right to food.
And about that "redline" that was not just US', but the entire worlds':
US Protected Iraq at UN from Iranian Charges of Chemical Weapons Use
Quandary, you have a similar list of vetoes by the other Security Council members?
Perhaps the resolutions you list had some wording or consequences that are not evident from the title you list for them. Also it is a general USA policy that the USA is not subject to UN resolutions as a legal principle.
Finally, sometimes those votes are against resolutions not because they go too far, but because they don't go far ENOUGH.
Of course none of that detail or nuance helps with the "US is an evil empire" narrative, does it?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, he's quoting from my link, and it wasn't linked to prove the US is an evil empire, it was linked to illustrate that American humanitarian interventionists hand-wringing about Putin's veto is nothing more than hypocritical bullshiznit.
Also, in other news, Obama continues to argue for limited, punitive air strikes and not regime change at all. Not even a tiny bit.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What's the time limit on pointing out hypocrisy? Does the person currently making the decision have to be responsible for prior decisions? Does everyone involved in the previous decision have to be dead?
Can I use the first crusade to point out the hypocrisy of the west and how they treat people in the Middle East?
What's the time limit exactly?
Also, how many lives are being saved by pointing out hypocrisy... as opposed to taking action to stop people from being killed?
Note, I'm not an interventionist. But all this pointing out of hypocrisy strikes me as people just trying to be morally superior without actually advocating anything.
What's the time limit on pointing out hypocrisy? Does the person currently making the decision have to be responsible for prior decisions? Does everyone involved in the previous decision have to be dead?
Can I use the first crusade to point out the hypocrisy of the west and how they treat people in the Middle East?
What's the time limit exactly?
Also, how many lives are being saved by pointing out hypocrisy... as opposed to taking action to stop people from being killed?
Note, I'm not an interventionist. But all this pointing out of hypocrisy strikes me as people just trying to be morally superior without actually advocating anything.
What about those of us advocating not going to war, but pointing out the hypocrisy anyway? Is that OK? Or does one trump the other?
Also, the time limit on hypocrisy is exactly one hour prior to the last event that makes your side look right in the argument. Duh.
EDIT:
The Guardian article says 2011 was the first Obama veto, but the list has one from 2009. Maybe that was January, I'm not sure, but I'll include it for fun:
2009 Calls for an end to the twenty-two-day-long Israeli attack on Gaza.
2011 Calls for a halt to the illegal Israeli West Bank settlements.
2011 Calls for Israel to cease obstructing the movement and access of the staff, vehicles and supplies of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees.
2011 Calls for the immediate and complete cessation of all Israeli settlement activities in all of the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and in the occupied Syrian Golan.
Hypocrisy: You don't have to go back to the Crusades.
Note, I'm not an interventionist. But all this pointing out of hypocrisy strikes me as people just trying to be morally superior without actually advocating anything.
I advocate stuff all the time.
Note, I'm not an interventionist. But all this pointing out of hypocrisy strikes me as people just trying to be morally superior without actually advocating anything.I advocate stuff all the time.
True, lack of advocacy has not been an issue in this discussion...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Note, I'm not an interventionist. But all this pointing out of hypocrisy strikes me as people just trying to be morally superior without actually advocating anything.I advocate stuff all the time.
We could talk about Woodrow Wilson all day and how he was a horrible person and did horrible things to the global community. Bringing it up as a point of hypocrisy is pointless though, because Woodrow Wilson isn't involved in making these decisions. Neither is Reagan, Bush I or II, Clinton, Carter, Eisenhower, Hoover, Roosevelt, Kissinger, McNamara, or dozens of others.
Just because Obama was wrong about something else, does not automatically make him wrong regarding this. It's a failure in reasoning to point out hypocrisy. If the decision is wrong, point out how it's wrong on it's own merits.
I think bombing Syria is wrong. I think this because of the things happen in and around Syria. I think this because history teaches us these kinds of actions don't have the effect of achieving our stated goal. I don't need to look at the hypocrisy of those involved, it's irrelevant.
Why you gotta bring up old s~#!?
Because people have unrealistic expectations on the morality of our nation. When obama doesn't live up to a mythic past that never existed people grarg about it. Compared to the other stuff we've done, some almost precision bombing to warn people away from chemical weapons is not some wild lunatic claim that must have resulted from an offhand comment on TV. Its if not good, at least way better than what we used to pull.
Just because Obama was wrong about something else, does not automatically make him wrong regarding this. It's a failure in reasoning to point out hypocrisy. If the decision is wrong, point out how it's wrong on it's own merits.
See my other posts in this thread.
I brought up the UN veto hypocrisy because it looked like the subject of the thread was turning to Putin.
I agree, non-walls of text can be fun too.
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.
Bump.
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.
Bump.
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...
Bump.
Etc., etc., etc.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Assad declares intent to sue USA for Damages if they attack.
Finally a Leader using the full force of the international legal system to bring his foe to heel.
More a general annoyance, not something solely to your linked articles... but too many articles on the internet are relying on key information to be backed up by following a link embedded in the text. It's starting to piss me off. They'll make a vague reference, of which I have no clue as to the precise nature of what they're referring and give me a link. Which will be an article which makes references with embedded links.If the information is crucial to your argument as a writer, just lay out the f%++ing evidence. It's bad writing.
The Garreth Porter piece is interesting and he's a good journalist, but he's too dismissive of sources of information based merely on their nationality, because he doesn't agree with their politics.
Well, I just woke up and am about to go out the door to peddle socialist newspapers at Worcester Pride (it's the weekend, after all, and I am on the clock), but quickly scanning the Porter piece again, all of the links that I am seeing ar souces. "In blah blah blah article, blah blah blah said XXXX" where XXX is a link to the article where blah blah blah said blah blah blah. I guess you're going to have to give examples.
As for dismissing claims because they come from a particular nationality, I assume you mean the alleged Israeli claims. My reading says that Porter isn't dismissing them because they come from Israel, he is reporting that the former British Ambassador believes they are fraudulent. He then goes on to write:
"But even if the intercept is authentic, the description of it in the intelligence summary appears to be misleading. Another description of the same intercept leaked to The Cable by an administration official suggests that the summary’s description is extremely tendentious."
That doesn't sound like dismissing information based merely on their nationality because he doesn't agree with their politics, but perhaps you had another example in mind.
More to the point: Bump.
I'm opposed to Obama's plan on multiple levels.
Bump.
I'm with you Comrade, I think it's a bad idea.
I do think that in the current situation, Russia is the biggest stumbling block to getting the international community to do something though. I'd love to see something intended to end the civil war in Syria, but I don't have my hopes up for it.
Yeah, I picked up on that. However, I brought up the UN veto issue, you said "Just because Obama was wrong about something else, does not automatically make him wrong regarding this. It's a failure in reasoning to point out hypocrisy. If the decision is wrong, point out how it's wrong on it's own merits," I demonstrated how I had, in fact, pointed out its demerits, repeatedly.
I did bump the exchange about the Truthout piece because you never responded and I am interested in hearing your response.
I think your analysis of Russia at the UN is a little off. The international community is doing quite a bit. Russia is supplying Assad. The United States, with Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia, are supplying the rebels. That's something.
The Russians, near as I can tell, have rather consistently vetoed UN resolutions that they felt were one-sided and aimed at crippling Assad and supporting the rebels. From a socialist perspective, Putin sucks and Assad sucks and I hope workers revolutions shoot them both. From my perspective as a semi-informed and permanently-stoned observer, they seem to have a point.
EDITED
|
|
I'm opposed to Obama's plan on multiple levels.Bump.
I'm with you Comrade, I think it's a bad idea.
I do think that in the current situation, Russia is the biggest stumbling block to getting the international community to do something though. I'd love to see something intended to end the civil war in Syria, but I don't have my hopes up for it.
Never do anything to others you are not prepared to subjected to yourself.
But I thought Obama's plan was to keep the war going and not let either side win? Is Putin playing into his hands? Or are they both just trying to keep the struggle going?
Did you? I could've sworn you thought it was a stretch.
There's a lot of debate on the far left about this, but here's an interesting piece by Edward Luttwalk [sic]:
I am still intrigued by the Luttwak piece that argues that American interests are best served by prolonging a stalemate between the two sides. I am even more intrigued by his claim that the Obama administration's policies reflect this understanding of American interests.
I can't say whether it's true or not, but it's not like American foreign policy in the region hasn't used that strategy before (Iran/Iraq War). Also, I think it's worth thinking about op-ed pieces in the NYTimes by a guy who's a senior associate at the Center for Strategic and International Studies
Oh, look, I never said that was the case, Comrade Jeff, I presented an article for discussion and said it was worth thinking about. Nice try, though.
Although, come to think of it, it wouldn't require immense mental gymnastics to fit your question into the Luttwak thesis:
Assad is winning the war.
UN imposes sanctions.
Rebels grow more powerful.
Stalemate preserved.
Well, in that case, I apologize for the snark responding to what I thought was your snark.
But I thought you thought Obama's plan was to keep the war going and not let either side win? Is Putin playing into his hands? Or are they both just trying to keep the struggle going?
Beats me. I dropped out of college and load trucks for a living.
No offense, Citizen Raven, but Comrade le Couard can tell you what I think of French socialists who want to bomb former French colonies.
Except Syria wasn't a french colony. Just a SDN mandate for a very limited time (from 1920 to 1946).
First, get your facts straight, then tell me what it has to do with the current matter, as we are quite willing to punish anyone's former colony who gets the silly idea to play with chemical weapons.
It seems that the threat of a military intervention was deemed sufficiently serious to push Syria (and its russian ally) to offer to dismantle its chemical arsenal. So I guess that, so long as they play nice, all military action will be suspended. Let's call it a diplomatic victory ?
Speaking of which, what's your take on how the French intervention in Mali played out? Better than your expectations? Worse?
I seem to recall you predicting doom on that a while back. :)
Mali has fallen off the radar for many of the sites that I follow, but here's a piece from Counterpunch from the beginning of the month (written, admittedly, by an Earth First!er.)
"As it appears that IBK [Ibrahim Boubacar Keita--who, indeed, won the election Link] will run away with the election in the final round, France hopes that this charming, charismatic populist figure will help maintain ECOWAS under French hegemony, keeping Mali’s uranium out of the hands of the BRICS or Saudis while possibly increasing the amount of land deals in the North and using the military’s iron fist to assure investor protections. This will mean increased patrols, likely coming from the US’s new drone base in Niger over Nigeria and Mali to monitor insurgencies, and long-standing conflicts. Whatever the outcome, peace may be a long time in coming, with food security even further off."
I will have to revisit my "predictions of doom," but that doesn't sound far off from what I remember saying earlier this year.
Very uninformed piece of s%!$, as Mali has no uranium : it's Niger.
It puts quite a defavorable perspective on the accuracy and seriousness of the whole, eh ?
More generally, I'm aware that you are a pacifist, opposed to all forms of warfare whatever the pureness of the initial intent. I can respect that, even if at times you can sound naive (to me).
Underscore : CW ARE BAD. DESTROY THEM. Maybe the fact that the only full scale chemical battles took place in France is coloring my worldview, but I have absolutely no qualms about punishing any country using them, especially on civilians.
"most observers of international affairs" = US, Syrian Rebels...
vs. UK, FR, UN, Russia... and presumably, India, Indonesia, South Africa, Italy, China, and all the other countries not backing US' violent stance?
Put FR on the other side : it's curious that you don't know about our stance on that topic, as you seem very well documented.
UK was going to participate too, but the Labor party thought that scoring a politica l point against PM Cameron was more important. Germany is neither pro- or against strikes : they get elections.
LAst, to answer the guy who asked why France wasn't willing to bomb Syria, well, it is. The strikes were scheduled for the night of the 31th of August, but got cancelled when Obama changed his mind and asked for a congress votre first (silly footnote : he changed hs mind so quickly that he didn't even send notice to the french government, who learnt of it by the press. Staunch ally, indeed! )
|
"most observers of international affairs" = US, Syrian Rebels...
vs. UK, FR, UN, Russia... and presumably, India, Indonesia, South Africa, Italy, China, and all the other countries not backing US' violent stance?Put FR on the other side : it's curious that you don't know about our stance on that topic, as you seem very well documented.
UK was going to participate too, but the Labor party thought that scoring a politica l point against PM Cameron was more important. Germany is neither pro- or against strikes : they get elections.
LAst, to answer the guy who asked why France wasn't willing to bomb Syria, well, it is. The strikes were scheduled for the night of the 31th of August, but got cancelled when Obama changed his mind and asked for a congress votre first (silly footnote : he changed hs mind so quickly that he didn't even send notice to the french government, who learnt of it by the press. Staunch ally, indeed! )
Well, France is famous as being a staunch ally /sarcasm
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"most observers of international affairs" = US, Syrian Rebels...
vs. UK, FR, UN, Russia... and presumably, India, Indonesia, South Africa, Italy, China, and all the other countries not backing US' violent stance?Put FR on the other side : it's curious that you don't know about our stance on that topic, as you seem very well documented.
UK was going to participate too, but the Labor party thought that scoring a politica l point against PM Cameron was more important. Germany is neither pro- or against strikes : they get elections.
Sure, I'm aware of the French regime's enthusiasm for an attack on Syria, which may have exceeded the US', my post you quoted was focused simply on the reaction to the proposal for Syria to join the OPCW and put CW under controls and destroy them ASAP, which French FM Fabius responded to positively to sooner and more forthrightly than the US (at the time I was writing it in particular). Of course in France, as UK, as the US, all talk of war is massively unpopular with the public, the plan was apparently for an extremely hasty attack without public debate.
Now it emerges that the case for war was so 'uncertain' that the US 'intelligence community' (CIA, DIA, NSA) would not 'sign off on it' or endorse it.
Basically, that the White House cherry picked elements of intelligence and slapped them together to claim that intelligence justified the conclusion they publicized, but the CIA/etc refused to back that assessment. This sham was planned to give enough cover to justify hair's notice assault, before damned democracy intervened. It's noticeable that it was never even claimed that the "dossier" was written by the CIA, as is the norm for intelligence analysis, rather, it was written by White House Press Office. So the claims that "everybody knows Assad did it" is a proven lie just by the CIA not believing that.
Senate Majority Leader Reid Compares Syria to Hitler's Gas Chamber Genocide
This when Genocide-Denier Turkey is a key partner of aggression against Syria (both the proposed attack, and arming violent rebels), with the US accomodating this position despite clear agreement among historians and genocide scholars of the fact of the genocide of Armenians and Assyrians at hands of Turks including their Kurd allies at the close of WWI. (many Kurdish groups have in fact acknowledged the historical genocide their forbears took part in) Turkey criminalizes frank debate over this as a 'insulting the Turkish nation'. To be clear, the only groups in Syria speaking of genocidal outcomes are extreme sectarian rebel/jihadi groups, not the Syrian regime which (whatever else one thinks of it) relies on supporters of all sects and ethnicities.
If he didn't say chemical weapons, he would have been hounded day after day about what would it take for us to intervene.
This. You can bet his political opponents would be playing the "helping his muslim brothers" card by now if he had not. That said, let the un people finish and report their findings.
Assad declares intent to sue USA for Damages if they attack.
Finally a Leader using the full force of the international legal system to bring his foe to heel.
....didn't see that coming, I must admit.
Yeah, I picked up on that. However, I brought up the UN veto issue, you said "Just because Obama was wrong about something else, does not automatically make him wrong regarding this. It's a failure in reasoning to point out hypocrisy. If the decision is wrong, point out how it's wrong on it's own merits," I demonstrated how I had, in fact, pointed out its demerits, repeatedly.
I did bump the exchange about the Truthout piece because you never responded and I am interested in hearing your response.
I think your analysis of Russia at the UN is a little off. The international community is doing quite a bit. Russia is supplying Assad. The United States, with Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia, are supplying the rebels. That's something.
The Russians, near as I can tell, have rather consistently vetoed UN resolutions that they felt were one-sided and aimed at crippling Assad and supporting the rebels. From a socialist perspective, Putin sucks and Assad sucks and I hope workers revolutions shoot them both. From my perspective as a semi-informed and permanently-stoned observer, they seem to have a point.
EDITED
Partially that was just me being curmudgeonly. I'm growing more and more annoyed with bad writing. Gareth Porter's analysis that the Israeli's might have an agenda is like pointing out that sometimes the sky is blue and other times it isn't. Everyone involved in disseminating information about Syria has an agenda. The fair.org piece is what annoyed me more, but it wasn't as bad as I thought on second glance, but it was still lazy with some of the linking. Again, it was more of a general complaint, I shouldn't have even brought it up or quoted your post, because it wasn't specifically directed at you or your links necessarily, just me complaining.
Again, it's probably just my curmudgeon side, I get annoyed with the attempts at moral superiority with pointing out hypocrisy. It gets old, redundant and repetitive. And yes, those are three words that all mean the same thing in this context.
For example, examining the US-Iraq relationship is useful if we're looking at ways to not do things, but to cite it as an example of hypocrisy implies the US should do nothing. I'm may be opposed to military options, but I'd still like to push for something.
I'm opposed to Obama's plan on multiple levels.Bump.
I'm with you Comrade, I think it's a bad idea.
I do think that in the current situation, Russia is the biggest stumbling block to getting the international community to do something though. I'd love to see something intended to end the civil war in Syria, but I don't have my hopes up for it.
"something intended to end the civil war"? Like what? Short of backing one side and having them crush the other.
Is there really a case on record of a successful non-military intervention that lets a rebellion against a dictator end in some kind of resolution both sides can live with?
Well, I think it would help if we could convince the Russians to stop selling them weapons. Once that happens, it might be possible to convince some other Arab countries to stop sending money and supplies as well. This would drag the conflict out longer, but it would also deplete resources on both sides.
One peaceful option that few would probably consider is giving Assad asylum, along with a hundred or so of his family. It's got to be big like that, plus have monetary and legal immunity incentives. Make it easy and advantageous for him to leave and he might. With him gone, I doubt there's a single individual with the power base to consolidate the government forces (especially if it's arranged and executed quickly). The last stumbling block would be getting the rebels to agree to limiting retaliation against Assad loyalists. Giving them immunity or only limited prosecution would end the conflict faster.
No one is going to try and push that though.
Although, come to think of it, it wouldn't require immense mental gymnastics to fit your question into the Luttwak thesis:
Assad is winning the war.
UN imposes sanctions.
Rebels grow more powerful.
Stalemate preserved.
Its not like we're not practiced at ignoring people slaughters in places we can't find on a map. I don't see how a stalemate helps us.
Is there truth to the claims that the rebels are being financed and trained by Al Qaeda?
If that's the case, is this a d-bag vs s~$# sandwich choice?
Is there truth to the claims that the rebels are being financed and trained by Al Qaeda?
If that's the case, is this a d-bag vs s~!@ sandwich choice?
a damn good question. I think this is mm why this seems to be so important to obama.