The reason why I posted so much about Iraq was because I was against the war and still think it was a stupid decision. Hence my reaction. I did however support the war in Afghanistan, although now it's crap. I don't have much to say about Obama's foreign policy because he really hasn't done much in that field. It's not about whether it's Bush or not.
Sometimes I just wish the e-outrage aimed at Syria's *proven/ongoing/egregious* war crimes/atrocities came close to equaling the e-outrage aimed at Obama's *yet-to-be-initiated/piddling/limited* military action aimed at curbing said war crimes/atrocities.
I swear if you plopped down from outer space into an internet chat room or US college campus right now you'd be forgiven for thinking humans have some pretty screwy priorities.
legal question:
What's that thing called when one doesn't do an actual murder but plans, abets, funds and sustains it as a third party? They are considered as guilty as the person carrying out the act, is that right?
"Strictly speaking, murder is the act of killing another human being unlawfully, likely with premeditation part of the mix. If it weren't for the word unlawfully, war and murder would be synonymous. But in war, countries authorize soldiers to use deadly force against enemy soldiers. That authorization makes killing legal under the specific circumstances of war, and so by definition, war can't be murder."
Gassing innocent people falls into the murder category.
Are you suggesting innocent people don't get killed in War or that the deaths are separated between innocent and not innocent?
That definition(which is not mine btw) states that people killed in War are not murder victims. I assumed that meant ANYONE killed in War.
Use of chemical weapons is a crime against humanity and a war crime. The civilized world has rules of war. Chemical weapons use violates those rules. Gassing people in violation of those rules makes those killings an unlawful act.
The reason why I posted so much about Iraq was because I was against the war and still think it was a stupid decision. Hence my reaction. I did however support the war in Afghanistan, although now it's crap. I don't have much to say about Obama's foreign policy because he really hasn't done much in that field. It's not about whether it's Bush or not.
We pulled out of Iraq in Dec. 2011.....your last post on your "Iraqui Report" thread was almost 4 years earlier....right after Obama took office.
So no Rock, I did not stop writing and researching about Iraq when Obama got elected. It just wasn't a topic on Soulstrut so I don't have any reason to post about it here.
So no Rock, I did not stop writing and researching about Iraq when Obama got elected. It just wasn't a topic on Soulstrut so I don't have any reason to post about it here.
Motown:
Why have you stopped posting album reviews?
Is it because Obama is president?
Let me also add, that even though I think we should act, if Congress says no, that should be end of it, unless Assad does it again. Then, we can revisit the issue.
I'm glad Obama went to Congress for the greenlight. I think it was the right thing to do.
So no Rock, I did not stop writing and researching about Iraq when Obama got elected. It just wasn't a topic on Soulstrut so I don't have any reason to post about it here.
Obviously I am not familiar with your writings off of SS....it WAS a long running topic here on SS until you stopped it from being one so you can understand why I thought your writing stopped as well.
I offer you a sincere apology and will make an effort to read the above links.
Motown:
Why have you stopped posting album reviews?
Is it because Obama is president?
Let me also add, that even though I think we should act, if Congress says no, that should be end of it, unless Assad does it again. Then, we can revisit the issue.
I'm glad Obama went to Congress for the greenlight. I think it was the right thing to do.
Do the math for me again.
What do we gain from hitting Damascus with a few cruise missiles?
As Motown has pointed out, Obama is not interested in changing the balance of power in Syria.
The administrations goal is not to weaken Assad, or strengthen the opposition.
I suppose that lawyer training and the live version involves plenty of arguing for prosecution when you know the defendant is innocent, and also defending those you know are guilty.
So I guess you become expert in portraying certainty on the face of contrary evidence, and as a worst case, slip into a world of self delusion in order to execute the job better.
Yep, those dead bodies and testimony by the doctors who examined them and the injured sure is contrary testimony.
Good grief.
What's your skin in this game?
Are you following your govt (whatever the stripe), your particular party line, or are you truly opposed to governments doing harm to their own people?
Or doing any haemrm to anyone?
Or is it the fact that they are using chemicals?
Break it down for me, please.
I suppose that lawyer training and the live version involves plenty of arguing for prosecution when you know the defendant is innocent, and also defending those you know are guilty.
So I guess you become expert in portraying certainty on the face of contrary evidence, and as a worst case, slip into a world of self delusion in order to execute the job better.
Yep, those dead bodies and testimony by the doctors who examined them and the injured sure is contrary testimony.
Good grief.
What's your skin in this game?
Are you following your govt (whatever the stripe), your particular party line, or are you truly opposed to governments doing harm to their own people?
Or doing any haemrm to anyone?
Or is it the fact that they are using chemicals?
Break it down for me, please.
I've been very clear in this thread. Perhaps if you took the time to actually read what I've posted instead of trying to think up responses and come backs, you'd be aware of my position.
Motown:
Why have you stopped posting album reviews?
Is it because Obama is president?
Let me also add, that even though I think we should act, if Congress says no, that should be end of it, unless Assad does it again. Then, we can revisit the issue.
I'm glad Obama went to Congress for the greenlight. I think it was the right thing to do.
Do the math for me again.
What do we gain from hitting Damascus with a few cruise missiles?
As Motown has pointed out, Obama is not interested in changing the balance of power in Syria.
The administrations goal is not to weaken Assad, or strengthen the opposition.
What is the point?
I don't thnk it's only going to be a few cruise missles. The Senate Commitee has authorized 90 days of strikes. Whether that is the final bill that's voted on, we don't know yet, but we can do a lot more than fire a few missles in 90 days. We can fire several hundred of them, a thousand of them.
If we can destroy or cripple Assad's capability to launch more chemical strikes, and prevent others from happening, we should do it.
How reliable is the intelligence on where the chemicals are stored?
And how will this work - Won't bombing the sites disperse the same chemicals into the air that have killed so many people?
Civilian deaths are almost a sure thing with air strikes - how is this being weighed out? This many civilians killed to prevent more chemical attacks is worth possibly preventing more civilians killed by chemical attacks?
Is this an on-the-ground assault?
If so, and the Americans secure storage sites, will they not be faced with a ground conflict?
How will they know how to identify the "good" rebels from the "bad" rebels? Seems to me, NO ONE should have access.
These are just a lay-person's questions and this whole thread is an academic exercise. Seems like a lot of unknowns to be supporting the murder of a few more thousand people who are hardly real to any of us anyway.
How reliable is the intelligence on where the chemicals are stored?
And how will this work - Won't bombing the sites disperse the same chemicals into the air that have killed so many people?
Civilian deaths are almost a sure thing with air strikes - how is this being weighed out? This many civilians killed to prevent more chemical attacks is worth possibly preventing more civilians killed by chemical attacks?
Is this an on-the-ground assault?
If so, and the Americans secure storage sites, will they not be faced with a ground conflict?
How will they know how to identify the "good" rebels from the "bad" rebels? Seems to me, NO ONE should have access.
These are just a lay-person's questions and this whole thread is an academic exercise. Seems like a lot of unknowns to be supporting the murder of a few more thousand people who are hardly real to any of us anyway.
These are good questions.
You don't have to take out the actual weapons sites to cripple the ability to deliver them.
You can destory air strips, runways, helicopters, planes, missle batteries, etc. If these are the sites you're targeting, civilian casualties are limited, if not prevented.
the UN is the place for this and if Assad continues or increases his use of chemical weapons, that shit is on his enablers at the UN. I do not see how it serves our interests in the slightest to act as world policeman in this instance. It was said back when we went into Afghanistan and later Iraq that "you break it, you own it". We really haven't even lived up to that, and in the case of Libya where our intervention had decidedly mixed (and unintended/planned for) consequences, we didn't even make that promise. So there are the following scenarios (among others)...
A: Obama gets congressional approval and launches 90 days of air strikes, no fly zone, etc? Shit gets hairy or needs more time, he is now committed to a military campaign for much of the remainder of his term that is deeply unpopular and has a tenuous at best relationship to our core interests. Considering the newest jobs report I can only imagine the hay his opponents would make of that. He would be remembered for the whole debacle and I'm sure he's aware of this.
B: Obama does not get congressional approval and goes ahead with strikes? He would likely have to endure an impeachment attempt (however specious) and his approval ratings will tank. I'm sure he knows this. And of course, there's also the range of consequences attached to the military action in and of itself.
C: Obama does not get congressional approval and goes before the American people for a heartfelt mea culpa. This is surely his preferred alternative, he will lose some face but will appear earnest and obedient to the whims of the people. 6 months later nobody will give a shit because we truly have bigger fish to fry.
So what you guys are saying, is that in the face of the above potential scenarios, we should go with D: carry out strikes with surgical precision that will not backfire, will not kill too many civilians, will have every intended effect at neutering Assad, will not enable groups that also want to attack America, will not inspire state-sponsored reprisals against our assets or allies, will not bog us down in a murky civil war we have absolutely nothing to do with...
You have a LOT more faith in the military and the government than I do.
In addition I would point out the ex-KGB elephant in the room.
If we take military action we could well end up fighting a proxy war with Russia, a country that has way more at stake in Syria than we ever will. The most effective action we could take now is to bring heavy international pressure on Russia to pull out.
The current talk of US intervention is playground diplomacy, imo.
The use of chemical weapons is abhorrent, and against international law.
Attacking a country that has not attacked you and is not imminent threat is abhorrent, and against international law.
If it is shown that the Syrian government is the source of the chemical attacks.
If the international community can agree upon a response.
I think Congress and the American public would be supportive.
If the US and France (with our allies in Nauru and Grenada) do this on their own it will be an absolute nightmare.
What if Assad's response to our attack is to increase the use of chemicals weapons?
What if his response is an attack on a US war boat?
I think the least likely out come would be that Assad stops killing civilians.
the UN is the place for this and if Assad continues or increases his use of chemical weapons, that shit is on his enablers at the UN. I do not see how it serves our interests in the slightest to act as world policeman in this instance. It was said back when we went into Afghanistan and later Iraq that "you break it, you own it". We really haven't even lived up to that, and in the case of Libya where our intervention had decidedly mixed (and unintended/planned for) consequences, we didn't even make that promise. So there are the following scenarios (among others)...
A: Obama gets congressional approval and launches 90 days of air strikes, no fly zone, etc? Shit gets hairy or needs more time, he is now committed to a military campaign for much of the remainder of his term that is deeply unpopular and has a tenuous at best relationship to our core interests. Considering the newest jobs report I can only imagine the hay his opponents would make of that. He would be remembered for the whole debacle and I'm sure he's aware of this.
B: Obama does not get congressional approval and goes ahead with strikes? He would likely have to endure an impeachment attempt (however specious) and his approval ratings will tank. I'm sure he knows this. And of course, there's also the range of consequences attached to the military action in and of itself.
C: Obama does not get congressional approval and goes before the American people for a heartfelt mea culpa. This is surely his preferred alternative, he will lose some face but will appear earnest and obedient to the whims of the people. 6 months later nobody will give a shit because we truly have bigger fish to fry.
So what you guys are saying, is that in the face of the above potential scenarios, we should go with D: carry out strikes with surgical precision that will not backfire, will not kill too many civilians, will have every intended effect at neutering Assad, will not enable groups that also want to attack America, will not inspire state-sponsored reprisals against our assets or allies, will not bog us down in a murky civil war we have absolutely nothing to do with...
You have a LOT more faith in the military and the government than I do.
to me D. is no approval, no mea culpa. I feel like this is the outcome we can expect, no?
I don't really trust the military to do it right, either. But Obama was right to at least ask if congress if wanted to do it. They apparently don't. And Obama won't bomb without approval because he's not W. So the killings in Syria will continue. I mean, this is my prediction; i don't fucking know.
In addition I would point out the ex-KGB elephant in the room.
If we take military action we could well end up fighting a proxy war with Russia, a country that has way more at stake in Syria than we ever will. The most effective action we could take now is to bring heavy international pressure on Russia to pull out.
I see this mainly as a proxy war. Assad only wants to remain in power of Syria; that's his motivation for being a monster. Russia (and China and Iran) are less powerful than the US, and want to keep and grow their influence in the world. So they're playing horse-trading with whether the UN can effectively deal with Assad.
So there needs to be a political settlement and unfortunately all of the partners seem to suffer from a great deal of moral poverty, so I'm not sure that'll happen.
I think that if the U.S. really believes in standing up for the civilians who were gassed and preventing that sort of thing, then they need work to find the right trade off with those countries, even if the U.S. becomes less rich or powerful in the end. I do worry that, for example, the Russians may get some sort of free pass to repress some other group of people in the world (e.g., Chechens, non-heterosexuals).
Then the UN can work to decide how to deal with Assad.
legal question:
What's that thing called when one doesn't do an actual murder but plans, abets, funds and sustains it as a third party? They are considered as guilty as the person carrying out the act, is that right?
Hey fascist, how many times have rebels killed little children? Never! Unlike Assad who has murdered thousands already. His regime even sends death squads to break into houses and knife hundreds of children to death in one night.
legal question:
What's that thing called when one doesn't do an actual murder but plans, abets, funds and sustains it as a third party? They are considered as guilty as the person carrying out the act, is that right?
Hey fascist, how many times have rebels killed little children? Never! Unlike Assad who has murdered thousands already. His regime even sends death squads to break into houses and knife hundreds of children to death in one night.
A quick search will show that Syrian rebels have been killing children...in some cases after they are forced to watch their parents being killed. There are no good guys in this, everyone has the blood of innocent people on their hands.
I don't think you have a clue what my post is even referring to and while I'll refrain from calling you names, I will tell you to fuck off and pick your fight with someone else who is interested in picking sides, despite just not having enough of an understanding or information.
As for the White House not wanting to give protective gear that's because the main opposition forces today are Islamists led by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant aka Al Qaeda in Iraq.
That's not true, Al Qaeda affiliated rebels are but a small fraction of all Syrian rebels. The vast majority are secular and moderate Islamists:
Comments
The reason why I posted so much about Iraq was because I was against the war and still think it was a stupid decision. Hence my reaction. I did however support the war in Afghanistan, although now it's crap. I don't have much to say about Obama's foreign policy because he really hasn't done much in that field. It's not about whether it's Bush or not.
I swear if you plopped down from outer space into an internet chat room or US college campus right now you'd be forgiven for thinking humans have some pretty screwy priorities.
Use of chemical weapons is a crime against humanity and a war crime. The civilized world has rules of war. Chemical weapons use violates those rules. Gassing people in violation of those rules makes those killings an unlawful act.
This shouldn't be news to you.
We pulled out of Iraq in Dec. 2011.....your last post on your "Iraqui Report" thread was almost 4 years earlier....right after Obama took office.
Probably just a coincidence.
http://www.soulstrut.com/index.php/forums/viewthread/26193/
Here's my blog on Iraq that I started in 2008 and that I write 4 stories a week for:
http://musingsoniraq.blogspot.com/
Here's me mentioned in the Christian Science Monitor about Iraq
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Backchannels/2013/0812/A-look-behind-surging-violence-in-Iraq
and I'm mentioned in this article by CSM about Iraq
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Backchannels/2013/0520/Are-tit-for-tat-sectarian-killings-enough-to-tilt-Iraq-back-to-war
Here's me in CNN on Iraq
http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2013/04/16/can-iraq-meet-its-oil-potential-2/
Here's two articles I wrote about Iraq for Foreign Policy
http://ricks.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/06/24/iraq_in_2013_is_a_lot_like_iraq_in_2003_with_many_of_the_same_mistakes_being_made
http://ricks.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/05/06/the_real_problem_in_iraq_is_the_stalemate_behind_the_current_surge_in_violence_ther
So no Rock, I did not stop writing and researching about Iraq when Obama got elected. It just wasn't a topic on Soulstrut so I don't have any reason to post about it here.
And I'm mentioned in these two books
Why have you stopped posting album reviews?
Is it because Obama is president?
:face_melt:
Let me also add, that even though I think we should act, if Congress says no, that should be end of it, unless Assad does it again. Then, we can revisit the issue.
I'm glad Obama went to Congress for the greenlight. I think it was the right thing to do.
Obviously I am not familiar with your writings off of SS....it WAS a long running topic here on SS until you stopped it from being one so you can understand why I thought your writing stopped as well.
I offer you a sincere apology and will make an effort to read the above links.
Do the math for me again.
What do we gain from hitting Damascus with a few cruise missiles?
As Motown has pointed out, Obama is not interested in changing the balance of power in Syria.
The administrations goal is not to weaken Assad, or strengthen the opposition.
What is the point?
What's your skin in this game?
Are you following your govt (whatever the stripe), your particular party line, or are you truly opposed to governments doing harm to their own people?
Or doing any haemrm to anyone?
Or is it the fact that they are using chemicals?
Break it down for me, please.
I've been very clear in this thread. Perhaps if you took the time to actually read what I've posted instead of trying to think up responses and come backs, you'd be aware of my position.
I don't thnk it's only going to be a few cruise missles. The Senate Commitee has authorized 90 days of strikes. Whether that is the final bill that's voted on, we don't know yet, but we can do a lot more than fire a few missles in 90 days. We can fire several hundred of them, a thousand of them.
If we can destroy or cripple Assad's capability to launch more chemical strikes, and prevent others from happening, we should do it.
And how will this work - Won't bombing the sites disperse the same chemicals into the air that have killed so many people?
Civilian deaths are almost a sure thing with air strikes - how is this being weighed out? This many civilians killed to prevent more chemical attacks is worth possibly preventing more civilians killed by chemical attacks?
Is this an on-the-ground assault?
If so, and the Americans secure storage sites, will they not be faced with a ground conflict?
How will they know how to identify the "good" rebels from the "bad" rebels? Seems to me, NO ONE should have access.
These are just a lay-person's questions and this whole thread is an academic exercise. Seems like a lot of unknowns to be supporting the murder of a few more thousand people who are hardly real to any of us anyway.
These are good questions.
You don't have to take out the actual weapons sites to cripple the ability to deliver them.
You can destory air strips, runways, helicopters, planes, missle batteries, etc. If these are the sites you're targeting, civilian casualties are limited, if not prevented.
They are meant as punishment/deterrent, so they'll be aimed at Assad's palaces, HQs, conventional sites.
And no ground assault.
(rhetorical - please don't feel the need to respond)
Crippling the ability to use chemical weapons again?
Yes.
Let's not forget that there were reports months back re: chemical weapons use. Assad heard crickets and so was obviously emboldened.
Do folls think he'll just give up using chemical arms absent a threat (or show) of force? like, REALLY really?
why the fusk would he do that?
A: Obama gets congressional approval and launches 90 days of air strikes, no fly zone, etc? Shit gets hairy or needs more time, he is now committed to a military campaign for much of the remainder of his term that is deeply unpopular and has a tenuous at best relationship to our core interests. Considering the newest jobs report I can only imagine the hay his opponents would make of that. He would be remembered for the whole debacle and I'm sure he's aware of this.
B: Obama does not get congressional approval and goes ahead with strikes? He would likely have to endure an impeachment attempt (however specious) and his approval ratings will tank. I'm sure he knows this. And of course, there's also the range of consequences attached to the military action in and of itself.
C: Obama does not get congressional approval and goes before the American people for a heartfelt mea culpa. This is surely his preferred alternative, he will lose some face but will appear earnest and obedient to the whims of the people. 6 months later nobody will give a shit because we truly have bigger fish to fry.
So what you guys are saying, is that in the face of the above potential scenarios, we should go with D: carry out strikes with surgical precision that will not backfire, will not kill too many civilians, will have every intended effect at neutering Assad, will not enable groups that also want to attack America, will not inspire state-sponsored reprisals against our assets or allies, will not bog us down in a murky civil war we have absolutely nothing to do with...
You have a LOT more faith in the military and the government than I do.
If we take military action we could well end up fighting a proxy war with Russia, a country that has way more at stake in Syria than we ever will. The most effective action we could take now is to bring heavy international pressure on Russia to pull out.
The current talk of US intervention is playground diplomacy, imo.
Attacking a country that has not attacked you and is not imminent threat is abhorrent, and against international law.
If it is shown that the Syrian government is the source of the chemical attacks.
If the international community can agree upon a response.
I think Congress and the American public would be supportive.
If the US and France (with our allies in Nauru and Grenada) do this on their own it will be an absolute nightmare.
What if Assad's response to our attack is to increase the use of chemicals weapons?
What if his response is an attack on a US war boat?
I think the least likely out come would be that Assad stops killing civilians.
...except when it's not.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responsibility_to_protect
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/04/24/obama-appoints-responsibility-to-protect-champion-samantha-power-to-chair-genocide-panel/
to me D. is no approval, no mea culpa. I feel like this is the outcome we can expect, no?
I don't really trust the military to do it right, either. But Obama was right to at least ask if congress if wanted to do it. They apparently don't. And Obama won't bomb without approval because he's not W. So the killings in Syria will continue. I mean, this is my prediction; i don't fucking know.
I see this mainly as a proxy war. Assad only wants to remain in power of Syria; that's his motivation for being a monster. Russia (and China and Iran) are less powerful than the US, and want to keep and grow their influence in the world. So they're playing horse-trading with whether the UN can effectively deal with Assad.
So there needs to be a political settlement and unfortunately all of the partners seem to suffer from a great deal of moral poverty, so I'm not sure that'll happen.
I think that if the U.S. really believes in standing up for the civilians who were gassed and preventing that sort of thing, then they need work to find the right trade off with those countries, even if the U.S. becomes less rich or powerful in the end. I do worry that, for example, the Russians may get some sort of free pass to repress some other group of people in the world (e.g., Chechens, non-heterosexuals).
Then the UN can work to decide how to deal with Assad.
Hey fascist, how many times have rebels killed little children? Never! Unlike Assad who has murdered thousands already. His regime even sends death squads to break into houses and knife hundreds of children to death in one night.
A quick search will show that Syrian rebels have been killing children...in some cases after they are forced to watch their parents being killed. There are no good guys in this, everyone has the blood of innocent people on their hands.
I don't think you have a clue what my post is even referring to and while I'll refrain from calling you names, I will tell you to fuck off and pick your fight with someone else who is interested in picking sides, despite just not having enough of an understanding or information.
That's not true, Al Qaeda affiliated rebels are but a small fraction of all Syrian rebels. The vast majority are secular and moderate Islamists: