Killing Civilians to Protect Civilians in Syria:
http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/18...lians-in-syria
Printable View
Killing Civilians to Protect Civilians in Syria:
http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/18...lians-in-syria
Does Obama Know He’s Fighting on al-Qa’ida’s Side?
‘All for one and one for all’ should be the battle cry if the West goes to war against Assad’s Syrian regime
by Robert Fisk
If Barack Obama decides to attack the Syrian regime, he has ensured – for the very first time in history – that the United States will be on the same side as al-Qa’ida.
Quite an alliance! Was it not the Three Musketeers who shouted “All for one and one for all” each time they sought combat? This really should be the new battle cry if – or when – the statesmen of the Western world go to war against Bashar al-Assad.
The men who destroyed so many thousands on 9/11 will then be fighting alongside the very nation whose innocents they so cruelly murdered almost exactly 12 years ago. Quite an achievement for Obama, Cameron, Hollande and the rest of the miniature warlords.
The men who destroyed so many thousands on 9/11 will then be fighting alongside the very nation whose innocents they so cruelly murdered almost exactly 12 years ago.
This, of course, will not be trumpeted by the Pentagon or the White House – nor, I suppose, by al-Qa’ida – though they are both trying to destroy Bashar. So are the Nusra front, one of al-Qa’ida’s affiliates. But it does raise some interesting possibilities.
Maybe the Americans should ask al-Qa’ida for intelligence help – after all, this is the group with “boots on the ground”, something the Americans have no interest in doing. And maybe al-Qa’ida could offer some target information facilities to the country which usually claims that the supporters of al-Qa’ida, rather than the Syrians, are the most wanted men in the world.
There will be some ironies, of course. While the Americans drone al-Qa’ida to death in Yemen and Pakistan – along, of course, with the usual flock of civilians – they will be giving them, with the help of Messrs Cameron, Hollande and the other Little General-politicians, material assistance in Syria by hitting al-Qa’ida’s enemies. Indeed, you can bet your bottom dollar that the one target the Americans will not strike in Syria will be al-Qa’ida or the Nusra front.
And our own Prime Minister will applaud whatever the Americans do, thus allying himself with al-Qa’ida, whose London bombings may have slipped his mind. Perhaps – since there is no institutional memory left among modern governments – Cameron has forgotten how similar are the sentiments being uttered by Obama and himself to those uttered by Bush and Blair a decade ago, the same bland assurances, uttered with such self-confidence but without quite enough evidence to make it stick.
In Iraq, we went to war on the basis of lies originally uttered by fakers and conmen. Now it’s war by YouTube. This doesn’t mean that the terrible images of the gassed and dying Syrian civilians are false. It does mean that any evidence to the contrary is going to have to be suppressed. For example, no-one is going to be interested in persistent reports in Beirut that three Hezbollah members – fighting alongside government troops in Damascus – were apparently struck down by the same gas on the same day, supposedly in tunnels. They are now said to be undergoing treatment in a Beirut hospital. So if Syrian government forces used gas, how come Hezbollah men might have been stricken too? Blowback?
In Iraq, we went to war on the basis of lies originally uttered by fakers and conmen. Now it’s war by YouTube.
And while we’re talking about institutional memory, hands up which of our jolly statesmen know what happened last time the Americans took on the Syrian government army? I bet they can’t remember. Well it happened in Lebanon when the US Air Force decided to bomb Syrian missiles in the Bekaa Valley on 4 December 1983. I recall this very well because I was here in Lebanon. An American A-6 fighter bomber was hit by a Syrian Strela missile – Russian made, naturally – and crash-landed in the Bekaa; its pilot, Mark Lange, was killed, its co-pilot, Robert Goodman, taken prisoner and freighted off to jail in Damascus. Jesse Jackson had to travel to Syria to get him back after almost a month amid many clichés about “ending the cycle of violence”. Another American plane – this time an A-7 – was also hit by Syrian fire but the pilot managed to eject over the Mediterranean where he was plucked from the water by a Lebanese fishing boat. His plane was also destroyed.
Sure, we are told that it will be a short strike on Syria, in and out, a couple of days. That’s what Obama likes to think. But think Iran. Think Hezbollah. I rather suspect – if Obama does go ahead – that this one will run and run.
© 2013 The Independent
Questions for President Obama — Before He Pulls the Trigger on Syria:
http://billmoyers.com/2013/08/26/que...gger-on-syria/
Broncofan: "If you'll indulge one more question (sorry). This is the last question. What is the place of an outside nation to help in this struggle? Is it their place to help tip the balance to those seeking greater freedoms? If a democratic government is being overthrown by reactionary forces, is it advisable to support the currently elected government against this coup? Or to do nothing because an externally applied force disrupts the internal forces that are in some way a greater reflection of the will of the people?"
The simple answer to your question is a corpus of law on humanitarian intervention, codified since the first Geneva Convention of 1864. The not so simple answer is in the competing claims of when how and why such laws apply, in specific cases. I fear the true answer may be that humanitarian intervention is shaped by politically expedient conditions.
As for examples, take your pick from history.
Britain declared war on Germany in 1939 because Germany invaded Poland; domestic policy in Germany which had already seen discrimination and widespread violence against Jews, other 'non-Aryans' and minorities, was not a casus belli.
Vietnam invaded Cambodia/Kampuchea in 1979 and put an end to the murderous Khmer Rouge regime, but did so in retaliation for Kampuchea's (alleged) violation of Vietnamese sovereignty not because the Khmer Rouge had slaughtered half its population -and the Conservative govt of Margaret Thatcher continued to recognise the Khmer Rouge as the legitimate govt of Kampuchea so as not to endorse Vietnam's invasion and the installation of a 'puppet government'; what the Cambodian people thought about it was not important.
An earlier British government had condemned Turkey's invasion of Cyprus in 1974 but in practical terms, other than refusing to recognise the so-called government of 'Northern Cyprus', nothing was done then or since even though Turkey is a fellow member of NATO and British troops are based in Cyprus -or maybe because of those factors, even though the invasion was and remains a violation of international law. When Saddam Hussein ordered his armed forces to invade and occupy -or 're-claim'- Kuwait in 1990, the international response was the co-ordination of a 'Coalition of the Willing' which used military force to evict Iraq from Kuwait, something that had never been done to evict Turkey from Cyprus, or Israel from the Occupied Territories -when asked why, the Foreign Secretary at the time, Douglas Hurd replied, 'Because we don't have a security council resolution to authorise it'. Any attempt to use force to evict Israel from Occupied Palestine would not get the approval of the USA, ditto Turkey in Cyprus; hence Russia as an obstacle on Syria, China on North Korea, and so on.
None of which undermines the moral cases in Israel, Cyprus, Syria or North Korea, but as I say, there are examples that show both the limits of international humanitarian law and the way in which it can be manipulated.
The International Committee of the Red Cross has a useful section on humanitarian law, otherwise there is a vast literature on it, though Michael Walzer's Just and Unjust Wars, and the work of Charles Beitz and Henry Shue might interest you.
http://www.icrc.org/eng/war-and-law/...ar-and-law.htm
Obama strike plans in disarray after Britain rejects use of force in Syria:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...a-britain-vote
But there has been no coherence from the beginning on this issue; Obama's caution has been sunk by bad advice, he will have to carry the responsibility on this with France. Cameron re-called Parliament to get an endorsement for military intervention in Syria; then Ed Miliband, who had initially registered support for the motion, insisted there could not be such a vote until the UN Weapons Inspection team report, so Cameron had to modify the original proposal -slagging off Milliband as 'fucking cunt, and a copper-bottomed shit' -in private of course; and then publicly present 'intelligence' in Parliament in which it is stated that the British government isn't 100% sure that the Syrian government was responsible for the chemical attack; and all this with no real knowledge of how effective any military action will be, or what the consequences might be -yet Cameron wanted a vote on it. This was a colossal mis-judgement on his part, as he is one part of a Coalition whose own party doesn't trust him on Europe and immigration. They stiffed him.
And really, does the USA depend on the UK when making plans to attack another country? The 'Special Relationship' - nice to have, but no need to have.
Al-Qaeda Links Cloud Syria as U.S. Seeks Clarity on Rebels:
http://www.businessweek.com/news/201...rity-on-rebels
This is a tricky situation- the use of chemical weapons is unconscionable, but a few cruise missile strikes are the equivalent of the West patting themselves on the back. They won't destroy stockpiles without running the risk of contamination or surviving ordinance falling into the hands of a number of different groups. The strikes could also force the Syrian military to decentralize their remaining munitions, making them even more difficult to control or keep tabs on.
If a U.S. led coalition does attack, it also runs the risk of encouraging militants from both Sunni and Shia enclaves in Lebanon and Iraq becoming even more deeply involved, raising the possibility of a regional sectarian conflict. Iraq itself has seen the bloodiest summer since the surge in 2006. Then there is always the threat of a retaliatory strike on Israel, which Assad has mentioned several times over the past few months as a possible doomsday scenario is his regime is removed from power by western forces.
So, its a very difficult situation and the only way to prevent the use of chemical weapons would be to insert some sort of larger presence in Syria or wage a protracted air campaign. Then again, there is always the chance of mission creep and putting troops on the ground, something Obama is highly allergic to after over a decade of war, which has helped tank the US economy. No one, not even the hawks, want another counter insurgency operation. Finding some way to bring both sides to the peace table seems the best option, although Assad has clearly become even more of a hardliner, especially after the victories around Homs- he thinks hes winning. For their part, the rebels are still too fragmented. So, the real question seems to be: how much influence can the US and Europe exert and if so, will it run the risk of starting a regional conflict which will be even more tragic than the current plight of Syrians? Some people are already comparing the conflict to the situation in the Balkans prior to World War I, when a variety of super powers were involved in that region.- Russia, Iran vs. the US and UK. Things could escalate and go a number of directions very quickly.
Arab papers here report that Syria has moved political prisoners into main army bases in Damascus in expectation of US strikes. That was a tactic that Saddam adopted during bombing strikes on Baghdad.
Incoherence all the way down the ine as i see Stavros pointed out.
But one is forced to ask - without seeming callous - what form of regime in Syria is a greater threat to global order. The vile Assad government or aJihadist dominated regime with a deep seated and violent animus towards the West?
All good points, because the Syrians have observed what happened in Iraq since 1990 (at least) and have amended their deployments to create a strategic complexity which Iraq did not have in the relatively simple case of the Kuwait invasion. The WMD that followed a decade later was a figleaf for regime change -years later Blair said of Iraq 'I took the view that we needed to remake the Middle East' -nothing to say about protecting the UK from attack. Syria has been a difficult place for the US historically, and it's intelligence on the country has been poor and dependent on Israel. But is it not the case that when Obama said there was a 'Red Line' that Syria should not cross, it was not just an invitation to do just that, but implied that anything else was in some way acceptable? As if using conventional weapons was not such a big deal! A big mistake and either personal or the result of poor advice.Quote:
Originally Posted by up_for_it
Obama had political ambitions yet, like Blair before him, never took the time to understand the Middle East when learning his trade, and appears a novice even now, after five years in office. His advisors are not much more savvy either, I believe Kerry was a Skull & Bones man when in Yale, not a great pedigree to have. It doesn't make sense militarily.
The diplomatic impasse has been created by the failure of the rebels to bring down the government, and the lack of any major defections from within the regime. On this basis, the Russians and the Chinese see nothing to negotiate about, and see the 'West' attempting to remove a pro-Iranian, pro-Russian government as being more important than what follows. Chechnya effectively collapsed under the weight of Russian arms (a conflict in which the USA had no input) yet eventually the Russians found someone to take office and give the place a semblance of normality. Hafiz el-Asad saw off the Brotherhood and other rebels in the 1980s, perhaps they think Bashar can emulate his father and that the broadly speaking moderate rebels will prefer a deal with Asad than a pact of losers with the Jihadists--?
On the other hand, something will have to be done about the refugees, many of whom are too scared to go home, if they still have one.
I think you underestimate the impact of the Jihadist groups ability to alienate the people they need most to survive -they appear like the Bolsheviks in 1917 and many of these groups like the Palestinian guerillas of the 1960s/70s have been modelled on the Bolsheviks and the Cuban cells -but the Bolsheviks though small and not well known were able to take advantage of a vacuum of power in Russia and use their people-friendly slogans, superior organisation and ruthless violence to win converts. The Syrian govt is not in disarray, and I think it is conceivable that if there is no significant change on the ground, the majority of rebel groups as time wears them down, may seek an accommodation with the regime rather than allow the minority Jihadist to hijack the state -many -most?- are not Syrian anyway. It could be like the 'awakening' in Iraq when the Sunna elites who had benefited from Saddam's largesse and then lost it, rebelled against the al-Qaeda militants whose agenda was even worse than the Shi'a in power.Quote:
Originally Posted by Prospero
There is now a suggestion that Qatar is having second thoughts on the long-term impact of its support for the Syrian rebels -because it hasn't worked, and many Arabs across the region may come to see Qatar as an interfering nuisance waving money around as its badge of honour so to speak. It played a major role in Libya, but as expected the smooth transition there has been beset by revenge attacks, and the political incoherence that follows years of dictatorship. Not sure how secure this makes the FIFA World Cup in Qatar, if that ever goes ahead.
Thanks for your response Stavros. Many of your comments point towards two important factors undergirding the entire mess:Quote:
Originally Posted by Stavros
1. Assad and his backers are in fact winning, in the sense they've regained lost territory in the north, areas which will allow them to reorganize and form a solid logistical base for further operations in northern Syria by securing the coastal Alawite enclaves and Hezbollah's supply lines into Lebanon. The conflict appears to be settling into a static phase, and although the western media hasn't made much of Homs, its a key location which will enable Assad to push northwards in a methodical and secure manner.
2. I think anyone keeping up with Syria can sense western governments not just the US but also the British and Germans in particular, are more concerned with making sure support would reach non-fundamentalist groups, hence the lack of concrete assistance due to a lack of intelligence on the various disparate organizations. This is the lesson of Iraq: a brutal dictator may be less problematic than what will come after a regime change, especially in a country that was already socialized to political violence well before the current conflict began ( think Syria's own internal repression operations and also the influx of Iraqi civilians in the early 2000s) Unfortunately, the conflict may just be building up steam compared to what might come after it- years of sectarian conflict which could well metastasize into a regional religious war. Not removing Assad may actually stabilize the situation if diplomacy can work. Right now, for the West, it is less about Syrian civilians and more about making sure Iraq, Turkey, and Israel don't get pulled in.
Obama, of course, has sought Congressional authorization to use force in Syria. But we should all remember Libya...
House Rejects Authorization of Libya Intervention:
http://www.nationaljournal.com/natio...ntion-20110624
Bill Richardson: We Need A "Coalition Of The Willing" For Attack On Syria:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vid..._on_syria.html
U.S. Depleted Uranium as Malicious as Syrian Chemical Weapons:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/craig-...b_3812888.html
Will the folks at the Norwegian Nobel Committee want their Peace Prize back?
One wonders not only why Obama was nominated, but why he agreed to accept it. The prize originally was to be awarded to to those who have "done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses"-you could at least argue that Henry Kissinger negotiated a peace with Vietnam at a congress in Paris even if his critics don't think he deserved it. In 1948 the committee decided not to make the award, so it is not as if they have to make a choice. But why has this Nobel Prize fetish become so important to some people?
The New Crossfire: Where Both Sides Support War With Syria:
http://www.fair.org/blog/2013/08/28/...ar-with-syria/
Simple answer nothing
Forget about Syria for the moment. What's goin' on w/ John Kerry.
John Kerry’s face looks different: Exhaustion, illness, Botox?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...illness-botox/
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben
IDK, but better question, Why put Kerry the Sec of State on the Sunday Morning Talk Shows instead of the VP Biden, Last I checked (admittedly its been a while) Sdec State should be working with foreign nations...
Sorry, but I’m still not able to approve of U.S. military action in Syria. Yes, gassing civilians is horrible and immoral. But so is shooting them. Bombing Syria (actually using Tomahawk missiles costing several hundred U.S. grand a piece) in an attempt to degrade its capacity to use gas will cause little damage to Assad while undoubtedly killing and maiming more people. Wouldn’t it be better to spend that money feeding and transporting refugees? Building hospitals? I do not believe that degrading Syria’s capacity for delivering such weaponry will deter anyone else who might want to use gas in the future. We ourselves gave gas to Saddam Hussein to use in his war against Iran. We do not have the moral high ground here. Neither do I believe the action will be restrained to a one-time-only mission. McCain has already proposed language that makes tipping the scales of the civil war in favor of the rebels a primary goal of U.S. interference. I do not believe the rebels, themselves would refrain from gas attacks had they the capacity. Nor am I convinced we should unreservedly be on the side of rebels. Certainly many of them are anti-western radicals. Finally, it seems almost certain to me that military interference in Syria will invite more terrorist attacts against the U.S. and the allies.
Tonight’s PBS News Hours ended (as it often does) with a role call of the recent dead (U.S. military) killed in Afghanistan. The faces of six young soldiers in uniform filled the screen each in succession. We are looking forward to finally pulling out of that quagmire, and as far as I can tell we left is worse off then entered nearly a decade ago.
Yes, when a leader gasses his own people, or simply shoots his own people, or runs them over with tanks, it is incumbent upon the world to respond to the outrage. But answering with another outrage is not a moral solution. Messages can be written in ink as well as blood.
I agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by VictoriaVeil
I'm not a fan of either Biden or Kerry. But Biden seems more congenial.
Or maybe they should just, well, screw it all and play poker on their iPhone like crazy McCain.
They're debating whether or not to use deadly force in Syria and McCain is playin' poker. Unreal. So, that's what we pay our Senators to do: play iPhone poker -- ha, ha!
Interesting interview w/ Patrick Cockburn of The Independent:
Victory Out of Reach for US in Syria - YouTube
It might just be my perception from far away, but I believe John Kerry and Chuck Hagel have brought a more strident -aggressive?- tone to foreign and defence policy since replacing Hillary Clinton and Leon Panetta. I don't know who is driving foreign policy making on Syria, I think Kerry, with his attempt to bring the Israeli's and Palestinians together, decided he can do something Mrs Clinton could not. There may even be some attempt to deal with the image Kerry had -generated from his Presidential bid- that he is dull, dithering and diluted....?Quote:
Originally Posted by VictoriaVeil
I think you are right to express the outrage most decent people feel when they see victims of chemical warfare -or any kind of violence for that matter. I think that the problem with the discussion on chemical warfare is that it operates from a position in which the horrors of the First World War led to the international conventions that banned them -yet the USA dropped two nuclear bombs on Japan in 1945; used Napalm and Agent Orange in Vietnam, and chemical weapons have been used by 'terrorists' such as the Syrian rebels earlier this year in Aleppo, and by Aum Shinrikyo on the Japanese subway system in 1995; and yet I understand that white phosphorous is only banned (in 1980) as a weapon of war if fired into civilian areas -in other words it may be legal to use it 'on the battlefield' -so that Israel in Operation Cast Lead in the winter of 2008-2009 could claim its use was 'not illegal', even though it also regularly identifies civilian areas as the battlefield and phosphorous bombs were dropped in refugee camps in Gaza -the IDF has also ripped up olive groves and plum orchards that stood for thousands of years on the West Bank because they claimed terrorists were using them as cover for attacks on the IDF, et etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
None of this should mitigate our concern with the use of chemical weapons, but it does skew the argument, as if regular warfare, or acts of 'ethnic cleansing' were in some way less urgent. The shredding of the human population -accompanied by mass rape- in Darfur in the Sudan did not lead to any military intervention there; indeed, what would happen if the international system decided that the use of rape -already a crime under international law- as a weapon of war marked a 'red line' beyond which no state could hope to pass without being challenged?
More to the point, as with my reply to Victoria above, I don't understand what is driving Obama's foreign policy on Syria. The Obama presidency was supposed to pull back from military confrontation and offer considered diplomacy as an alternative. This, talk of 'Red Lines' and the absurdity of the Nobel Peace Prize, was a gift to anyone wanting to provoke an alternative, contradictory reaction. Yet the Russians claim the USA lied to them when they supported the Security Resolution authorising the use of air power against Qadhafi to pre-empt his attack on the Bengazi and eastern Libya -because the result was widespread bombing resulting in regime change. And it must be said, that when the USA takes -or appears to take- the position that the so-far 'alleged' chemical attack in Damascus was a 'Red Line' incident without waiting for any independent confirmation, you have to ask if this is indeed a 'punishment attack' or part of a wider strategy to so weaken the Syrian government that it is 'bombed to the conference table'.
Perhaps Hagel and Kerry, no doubt prompted by Saudi Arabia -Qatar I believe is re-thinking its position- pushed Obama for an aggressive response, one that would also make it clear to the Russians and Iran that the USA retains force as an option; while Obama is still cautious -clearly, if Obama wants Congressional approval and can wait, the 'urgency' of a response to the chemical attack was not that intense that it could not wait.
Ever since the assassination of Ambassador Stevens, there has been a claim the Obama Presidency is a soft touch for terrorists; an administation that has backed off from retaliation, that is letting other people push the USA around without responding. McCain, walking into Congress this week, dismissed the Russians and Ban Ki-Moon as 'irrelevant', and with it the whole of the UN, an echo of the narcissistic violence espoused by George W Bush, Dick Cheney and John Bolton, the very stance that lost the Republicans the election and became part of the events that discredited the USA. McCain's role in provoking the Obama administration is not based on clear strategic thinking about Syria, it is driven by a belief that the USA must continue to show Russia and Iran that it will respond militarily when it wants, where it wants, and to whom it wants.
Such aggression may speak the language understood in Moscow and Tehran as McCain sees it, what it doesn't do is address the disarray among the rebels in Syria or the apparent strength of the Syrian government, because I don't think McCain is that interested in Syria at all, it is part of an attempt to undermine the different path Obama wants the USA to take. I don't know what happened with Hillary Clinton and the Russians when the Syrian crisis began, I am not sure how keen Obama is on violence as a US response, but I do think that Rouhani is keen for some rapprochement with the USA, and that a change in Iran is one of the keys that can unlock this dilemma, as Iran is a key backer of the Syrian government. To talk face to face with Putin may be difficult, right now even pointless, but as I said in another post, does Obama have the courage to go to Tehran and talk face to face with Rouhani? Yes, Israel, McCain and his friends would go berserk, but sometimes it takes a bold move to break an impasse -much as Sadat's visit to Israel in 1977, the outcome of which was an historic peace treaty brokered by a Democrat US President.
There are precedents to follow.
I think that's pretty accurate. Clinton was a diplomatic machine. She spent most of her tenure on the road, negotiating face-to-face with foreign leaders. Panetta quietly ran DoD from the background, preferring soft-power solutions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stavros
Also remember that both Kerry and Hagel are veterans. Both volunteered to serve and come from families that emphasized military service. Neither is true of Clinton or Panetta.
Tough to say that this change of tone was an intentional move by Obama, since it seems that Kerry was his second choice for State after Susan Rice, who I think would have been more of a soft-power diplomat.
Always remember that morals, not money, shape America's foreign policy... :)
Senators Authorizing Syria Strike Got More Defense Cash Than Lawmakers Voting No:
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/201...ization-money/
As the American poet Allen Ginsberg wrote: "War is good business/Invest your son."
It's true. War is good for business, big business....
US Military Contractors Celebrate Record High Profits and Stock Prices - YouTube
Thanks for the insight -there are nuances to the reporting of news in the USA which escape us in the UK. I wonder what the view is on Obama's decision to refer the military strike to Congress. Some might see this as a weakness, a concession to those who believe that policy making was going too fast when it is up to the President to act decisively. Or that by going to Congress he is taking a political risk he doesn't need to, while in the process re-affirming the importance of Congress as a voice for 'the people' through their representatives, and is thus more inclusive than was experienced under the Bush administration.Quote:
Originally Posted by thombergeron
Perhaps a mixture of the two, or maybe doubts about the consequences are now weighing more heavily than the 'moral' argument for action following a chemical act which according to Bild, in Germany, may have been caused by rogue elements in the military; although the same German intelligence body (the BND, gathering intel from a ship off the Syrian coast) claimed to have intercepted a phone call between a Hezbollah official in Beirut and an Iranian diplomat in Damascus which claims Asad ordered the attack.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_3889551.html
Absolutely NOTHING...It is a civil war where you have the bad against the bad. You have the Assad regime fighting the rebels who are joined with Al Qaeda....there are no good guys here. The rebels are killing Christians and burning down churches...and I will bet both sides have used nerve gas. This is a conflict we need no part of and over 90% of the American people are against taking any military action....as nothing good will come from this.
I think Obama is going for the Pontius Pilate play and counting on a NO vote from Congress. It's the surest way he can wash his hands of the problem and keep up his anti-war persona while still making noise about what should be done.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stavros
That was my impression (and hope) until he started selling it. Why address the Nation tomorrow night if not to try to sway the general public? (On a side note, did all the type face get unreadily small in here, or did I do something to my setting?)Quote:
Originally Posted by runningdownthatdream
He already knows from the polling that a huge majority is opposed to any military action against Syria - he'll make a pitch about the awfulness about oppressive regimes, gassing of citizens, etc but he's counting on losing that vote in Congress. There's no real impetus for America to do anything other than some token word-play about human rights abuses. Americans in general don't really give a shit about non-white people killing each other. More-so that these are muslims killing each other.Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
In fact notice the massive upheavals in muslim countries in and around the middle-east since Obama took power? It kinda speaks to the methods he was advocating during the 2008 election. Namely that people in those countries should determine their own fates. I suspect American money has contributed to many of those opposition movements - certainly American technology (Facebook and Twitter to name a few) has had a profound impact on whats happened over. These same companies which may or may not be influenced by the CIA and NSA behind the scenes.
America has benefited from that upheaval as the internal conflicts over there has kept conflicts from America and its partners - all in all not a bad thing at all. Let the people in those countries figure out what's best for them.
On another note, what do you think about American politicans wanting to arm nameless/faceless Syrian 'rebels' with assault weapons to fight their own internationally recognized government while simultaneously decrying their use domestically? Are the conspiracy theorists right after all about the government wanting to ban assault weapons because they're fearful of another revolution?
...............................you must have screwed up your browser settings as i don't have any issue with reduced typeface
Must be your settings, it all looks the same from here.Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
Will be interesting to see if the Russian proposal to take Syria's chemical stocks leads anywhere- it started with what is becoming an irritating habit by John Kerry to improvise policy, suggesting in a speech in London the option of removal and then discounting it, only for the Russians to pick up the ball and play with it.
On the one hand, it would de-escalate the tension on this issue, but then the admin kicks in = identifying all the stocks, appointing independent people to remove them, verification that it has removed all the stocks, rather like verifying arms control between the USA and the USSR or decommissioning the IRA's weapons... suddenly the Russians and the Iranians -whose troops were subjected to chemical attack in the war with Iraq- realise that there must be limits, not least because in Russia's case those weapons could find their way into Russia as well as the Caucasus...I wonder if this is part of a movement that leads to a gradual run down of the violence -it won't end it, but perhaps it is time for the Syrian opposition, which militarily has barely achieved a stalemate, to reconsider its political strategy -if it has one.
Andrew Bacevich: Drama from Obama:
http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/1757...ma_from_obama/
Andrew J. Bacevich is a professor of history and international relations at Boston University.
Guess who's coming to dinner? Or not, as the case may be...
http://i.imgur.com/ipObN9R.jpg