Syria

[Reub]

Are we sure that the pressure isn't coming from his pro-Islamist friends?

i wonder how overt the military industrial complex is in pressuring for war...

[jacob_h]

I'd support armed intervention in Syria if the USA FedGov did something sensible with our expenditure of the national treasure - like placing the Syrians on reservations and opening the lands of the new Syria Territory to homesteaders.

[MediumTex]

I'd support armed intervention in Syria if the USA FedGov did something sensible with our expenditure of the national treasure - like placing the Syrians on reservations and opening the lands of the new Syria Territory to homesteaders.

That's funny.

Isn't that what happened in Israel in the late 1940s?  Even 60 years later they are still coping with the blowback that move generated.

[jacob_h]

I'd support armed intervention in Syria if the USA FedGov did something sensible with our expenditure of the national treasure - like placing the Syrians on reservations and opening the lands of the new Syria Territory to homesteaders.

That's funny.

Isn't that what happened in Israel in the late 1940s?  Even 60 years later they are still coping with the blowback that move generated.

I like to think that it is funny because it is an uncommonly heard suggestion these days.

They say that history rhymes, and this conflict in Syria seems rather like the Beaver Wars of the North American Great Lakes regions to me [1]. See below:

Beaver Wars actors -> Syrian Conflict actors
France -> Russia
Various Algonquian tribes (Huron, Erie, etc.) -> Various pro-regime groups (Alawites, Christians, etc.)
English -> Americans
Dutch -> Gulf states
contested beaver fur trade routes -> contested oil / nat. gas. pipeline routes
Iroquois confederacy -> Rebel front
Mohawks -> Al Qaeda
Other Iroquois tribes -> various Muslim Brotherhood rebel groups

Results in Iroquois slaughtering everyone and the English colonists eventually crowding them out of their lands anyways -> Results in the Muslim Brotherhood killing everyone and the American businessmen crowding them out of their lands anyways??

I humbly suggest we avoid as much killing as possible and skip to the end where the Syrians are running bingo for cash games in their special municipalities.  Heck, we ought to offer them an Obamacare card for each AK-47 and a Katrina trailer for each rocket launcher they turn in at the reservation's gates.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beaver_Wars

[notsheigetz]

Another gem from Pat Buchanan....

We are told Obama intends to hit Syria with cruise missiles for just a few days to punish Assad and deter any future use of gas, not to topple his regime. After a few hundred missiles and a thousand dead Syrians, presumably, we call it off.

Excuse me, but as Casey Stengel said, "Can't anybody here play this game?"

Nations that start wars and attack countries, as Gen. Tojo and Adm. Yamamoto can testify, do not get to decide how wide the war gets, how long it goes on or how it ends.

[Benko]

Excuse me, but as Casey Stengel said, "Can't anybody here play this game?"

It depends on what game you are talking about.  Though I confess I'm not sure this makes sense under any set of rules. 

On the other hand, if you hire an employee who has no experience which would qualify him for the position (and renew his contract), you deserve what you get.

[Jan Van]

The Oatmeal: The world reacts to Syria

[Libertarian666]

More from Pat Buchanan (from the same article where notsheigetz got his quote).

Will Boehner Stop Our Rogue President?

The next 72 hours will be decisive in the career of the speaker of the House. The alternatives he faces are these:

John Boehner can, after “consultation,”? give his blessing to Barack Obama’s decision to launch a war on Syria, a nation that has neither attacked nor threatened us.

Or Boehner can instruct Obama that, under our Constitution, in the absence of an attack on the United States, Congress alone has the authority to decide whether the United States goes to war.

It's not really up to Boehner; impeachment (which would be deserved) has to come from the House, but they won't do anything either.

[Libertarian666]

It's not really up to Boehner; impeachment (which would be deserved) has to come from the House, but they won't do anything either.

What isn't up to Boehner?  (I know he isn't the Commander in Chief.)

But he could at least have the sense to call the House back into session and have a vote on whether to attack Syria.  If the vote failed, it would provide evidence for an impeachment hearing.

I can dream, can't I?

Oops, sorry, for some reason I was linking Boehner to the Senate, which of course is wrong.

So it is up to him, as Speaker of the House, to tell Obama that he will be impeached if he does this without Congressional approval.

I'm not holding my breath.

[Jan Van]

They'll probably play the word game and tell us we're not going to war. So we don't need congress to be involved.

Anyways.... Official Declarations of War by Congress

[notsheigetz]

Or Boehner can instruct Obama that, under our Constitution, in the absence of an attack on the United States, Congress alone has the authority to decide whether the United States goes to war.[/size][/font]

A case that was strongly made by two senators named Obama and Biden during the Iraq fiasco. If you haven't listened to the youtubes of them making these statements I highly recommend them as perfect examples of hypocrisy. Biden was even suggesting impeachment if Bush attacked Iraq without congressional authorization.

[Jan Van]

From this it seems there's no problem:

Can Obama Bomb Syria? The Legality of a Unilateral U.S. Strike

The War Powers Act envisages real wars, not the lobbing of cruise missiles into a country for a few days to punish that country’s leader for crossing some red line the president decided to draw. If the U.S. bombs Syria, the action may take only a few days. If this is in fact the case, the War Powers Act only states Obama is required to tell Congress what he is doing and why. Obama has already briefed Congress and will undoubtedly advise of more details, either in a brief to Congress or on a television show.

[stuper1]

Or Boehner can instruct Obama that, under our Constitution, in the absence of an attack on the United States, Congress alone has the authority to decide whether the United States goes to war.[/size][/font]

A case that was strongly made by two senators named Obama and Biden during the Iraq fiasco. If you haven't listened to the youtubes of them making these statements I highly recommend them as perfect examples of hypocrisy. Biden was even suggesting impeachment if Bush attacked Iraq with congressional authorization.

Is there no difference between putting boots on the ground to topple a government on clearly spurious grounds (i.e., supposed evidence of WMDs that were never found), versus sending a message to a government that we are not going to sit by and let them gas innocent people?

[notsheigetz]

Is there no difference between putting boots on the ground to topple a government on clearly spurious grounds (i.e., supposed evidence of WMDs that were never found), versus sending a message to a government that we are not going to sit by and let them gas innocent people?

Speaking of Iraq the "gassed his own people" line has kind of a familiar ring to it, doesn't it? I refer you to MT's signature about not believing anything you read in the papers.

And even if he is gassing people, constitutionally speaking I would still say no, there is no difference.

[stuper1]

Speaking of Iraq the "gassed his own people" line has kind of a familiar ring to it, doesn't it? I refer you to MT's signature about not believing anything you read in the papers.

And even if he is gassing people, constitutionally speaking I would still say no, there is no difference.

#1 - Not really a familiar ring to me.  I don't get the feel that Obama is really itching to go into Syria the way Bush was into Iraq.  I believe Syria is pretty far down on the list of countries with oil reserves.

#2 - The constitution is just a piece of paper that can be read just about any way you want it to.  If Obama wants to read it as not stopping him from trying to stop somebody from gassing people, it doesn't bother me a whole lot.  Of course, the ones who make out like bandits are whoever makes and sells the missiles to Obama.

[MediumTex]

Or Boehner can instruct Obama that, under our Constitution, in the absence of an attack on the United States, Congress alone has the authority to decide whether the United States goes to war.

A case that was strongly made by two senators named Obama and Biden during the Iraq fiasco. If you haven't listened to the youtubes of them making these statements I highly recommend them as perfect examples of hypocrisy. Biden was even suggesting impeachment if Bush attacked Iraq with congressional authorization.

Is there no difference between putting boots on the ground to topple a government on clearly spurious grounds (i.e., supposed evidence of WMDs that were never found), versus sending a message to a government that we are not going to sit by and let them gas innocent people?

Sort of like we sent a message to Saddam Hussein in 1988 when he killed 5,000 Kurds in a gas attack?

Oh, wait a second, back in 1988 Hussein was the good guy and we were supporting him in his war against Iran.

Never mind.



Even when it comes to Syria itself, George Bush was all too happy to cozy up to Assad's dad in 1990 when he needed countries in the region to sign on to his decision to get involved with the Iraq/Kuwait border dispute that the U.S. ambassador to Iraq had assured Saddam Hussein the U.S. had no interest in only a few months before.

So was Assad's dad a model citizen?  Nah.  He killed a whole city of Syrians in 1982 for sport and used poison gas to make sure that there were no survivors.

In 1982 the Syrian government killed 30,000 – 40,000 of its own citizens. Assad leveled an entire city with an air bombardment followed by artillery and tank fire. Why? They were anti Baath party, and apparently in 1982 in Syria that was a death sentence…

The residents of a Syrian city named Hama had been more persistent in their criticisms of the dictator than other towns. For that reason,

Hafez Assad decided that Hama would be the staging point of the example he was to make to the Syrian people. In the twilight hours of February the 2nd, 1982, the city of Hama was awakened by loud explosions. The Syrian air force had begun to drop their bombs from the dark sky.

The initial bombing run cost the city few casualties. It's main purpose had been to disable the roads so that no-one could escape. Earlier in the night, Syrian tanks and artillery systems had surrounded Hama. With the conclusion of the air bombing run, the tanks and artillery began their relentless shelling of the town.

The cost in human lives was severe. As homes crumbled upon their living occupants and the smell of charred skin filled the streets, a few residents managed to escape the shelling and started to flee. They were met by the Syrian army which had surrounded the city ... they were all shot dead.

Hours of shelling had turned Hama into rubble. The tanks and artillery had done all that they could. The next wave of attacks came in the form of Syrian soldiers. They quickly converged onto the town killing anything that would move. Groups of soldiers would round up men, women, and children only to shoot them in the back of the head. Many other soldiers would invade homes with the orders to kill all inhabitants.

After the majority of the people in Hama were dead, the soldiers began looting. They would take all that they could from the now empty homes. Some were seen picking through the dead civilians looking for money, watches, and rings.

With their mission completed and their pockets filled with loot, the soldiers began to retreat from the city. One would think that would have been the last wave of the attacks. It was not. The final attack on Hama was the most gruesome. To make sure that no person was left alive in the rubble and buildings, the Syrian army brought in poison gas generators. Cyanide gas filled the air of Hama. Bulldozers were later used to turn the city into a giant flat area.

The Syrian government death count was place at around 20,000 people dead ... but the Syrian Human Rights Committee estimates it to be much higher, at somewhere between 30,000 to 40,000 civilians’ dead or missing…

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread156515/pg1

Bush and Assad in 1990:



Note the irony in cozying up to a leader who had used poison gas to kill his own people for the purpose of forming a coalition against another leader who had used poison gas to kill his own people.

[Libertarian666]

It is not in the average US citizen's interest for the US to get into any war, with the possible sole exception of a war in which the US has been physically attacked by a known foreign government.

Of course, this is unimportant to the US government, whose interests have effectively nothing in common with that of the citizenry.

[MediumTex]

Speaking of Iraq the "gassed his own people" line has kind of a familiar ring to it, doesn't it? I refer you to MT's signature about not believing anything you read in the papers.

And even if he is gassing people, constitutionally speaking I would still say no, there is no difference.

#1 - Not really a familiar ring to me.  I don't get the feel that Obama is really itching to go into Syria the way Bush was into Iraq.  I believe Syria is pretty far down on the list of countries with oil reserves.

#2 - The constitution is just a piece of paper that can be read just about any way you want it to.  If Obama wants to read it as not stopping him from trying to stop somebody from gassing people, it doesn't bother me a whole lot.  Of course, the ones who make out like bandits are whoever makes and sells the missiles to Obama.

There has been an informal rule in place since the 1980s that each American President is entitled to drop some bombs on a country that pisses him off, and this is just one of the perks of being President.

Obama is just cashing his token with this Syria thing.

[MediumTex]

It is not in the average US citizen's interest for the US to get into any war, with the possible sole exception of a war in which the US has been physically attacked by a known foreign government.

Of course, this is unimportant to the US government, whose interests have effectively nothing in common with that of the citizenry.

Other than World War II and the War of 1812, I don't think any of the other U.S.'s wars have been in the interest of the citizenry.

[Libertarian666]

It is not in the average US citizen's interest for the US to get into any war, with the possible sole exception of a war in which the US has been physically attacked by a known foreign government.

Of course, this is unimportant to the US government, whose interests have effectively nothing in common with that of the citizenry.

Other than World War II and the War of 1812, I don't think any of the other U.S.'s wars have been in the interest of the citizenry.

I'm not sure about WWII either. Yes, the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor. But my understanding is that that was a response to Roosevelt's forcible interference with their trade. Furthermore, WWII was largely a result of the US intervention in WWI.

[MediumTex]

It is not in the average US citizen's interest for the US to get into any war, with the possible sole exception of a war in which the US has been physically attacked by a known foreign government.

Of course, this is unimportant to the US government, whose interests have effectively nothing in common with that of the citizenry.

Other than World War II and the War of 1812, I don't think any of the other U.S.'s wars have been in the interest of the citizenry.

I'm not sure about WWII either. Yes, the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor. But my understanding is that that was a response to Roosevelt's forcible interference with their trade. Furthermore, WWII was largely a result of the US intervention in WWI.

Oh sure.  The U.S.'s involvement in WWII could have easily been avoided.  In fact, one of FDR's campaign slogans in 1940 was "HE KEPT US OUT OF WAR."

[Libertarian666]

Other than World War II and the War of 1812, I don't think any of the other U.S.'s wars have been in the interest of the citizenry.

I'm not sure about WWII either. Yes, the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor. But my understanding is that that was a response to Roosevelt's forcible interference with their trade. Furthermore, WWII was largely a result of the US intervention in WWI.

Oh sure.  The U.S.'s involvement in WWII could have easily been avoided.  In fact, one of FDR's campaign slogans in 1940 was "HE KEPT US OUT OF WAR."

Um, I think that was Wilson's slogan in 1916. Or am I missing your point? 

[MediumTex]

I'm not sure about WWII either. Yes, the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor. But my understanding is that that was a response to Roosevelt's forcible interference with their trade. Furthermore, WWII was largely a result of the US intervention in WWI.

Oh sure.  The U.S.'s involvement in WWII could have easily been avoided.  In fact, one of FDR's campaign slogans in 1940 was "HE KEPT US OUT OF WAR."

Um, I think that was Wilson's slogan in 1916. Or am I missing your point? 

Maybe the 1940 poster I saw was just riffing on the 1916 slogan.  Keeping the U.S. out of WWII was, however, a big part of FDR's 1940 campaign.

[stuper1]

I'm sure the dead, the maimed, and their survivors will be put at ease Obama's reluctance.

Well, I think the idea is to reduce the number of dead/maimed by reducing the killing/maiming capacity of the Assad government.  Of course, there's no certainty in the calculation; it's just a guess on probabilities; and collateral damage may be unavoidable.  Having to make that calculation is one of the bigger reasons I would never want to be president.

[MediumTex]

I'm sure the dead, the maimed, and their survivors will be put at ease Obama's reluctance.

Well, I think the idea is to reduce the number of dead/maimed by reducing the killing/maiming capacity of the Assad government.  Of course, there's no certainty in the calculation; it's just a guess on probabilities; and collateral damage may be unavoidable.  Having to make that calculation is one of the bigger reasons I would never want to be president.

What about the idea that as President you shouldn't do things that you don't have the legal authority to do?