Syria

[Reub]

The Saturday Night skit is Roseannadanna totally misunderstanding a situation and then saying "never mind".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wznjAhZ0eWc

[Reub]

Seriously, if we wanted to teach Syria a lesson and still have our allies go along with us then all we need to do is find a way to impose Obamacare on them.

[stuper1]

Obama is worried that Assad will gas thousands, and he'll be blamed for letting it happen.

That being the case, he should publicly call on Congress to debate and decide what to do.  That way if they decide against, he's totally off the hook.

Satisfied?

[RuralEngineer]

People continue to say that launching cruise missiles from ships into a country to "punish" them for bad behavior isn't a war.

That's like saying Pearl Harbor wasn't a war until we declared war on Japan.  I'm sorry, but everyone pushing that line of thinking is an idiot.  Launching cruise missiles into a country is absolutely a declaration of war and if they think it's not, then I want them to do a little thought exercise on what our response would be if another country did that to us.  Even assume they didn't hit anything vital and took out some small towns or something with no strategic importance.

Such hypocrisy.

[Ad Orientem]

People continue to say that launching cruise missiles from ships into a country to "punish" them for bad behavior isn't a war.

That's like saying Pearl Harbor wasn't a war until we declared war on Japan.  I'm sorry, but everyone pushing that line of thinking is an idiot.  Launching cruise missiles into a country is absolutely a declaration of war and if they think it's not, then I want them to do a little thought exercise on what our response would be if another country did that to us.  Even assume they didn't hit anything vital and took out some small towns or something with no strategic importance.

Such hypocrisy.

Bombing another country is considered a causus belli, which is to say a cause for, or act of, war. Doing so without a formal declaration of war (excepting in actual cases of immediate self defense) is in theory illegal under international law. However as a matter of practical reality, it is now common place. This is altogether regrettable.

[RuralEngineer]

Bombing another country is considered a causus belli, which is to say a cause for, or act of, war. Doing so without a formal declaration of war (excepting in actual cases of immediate self defense) is in theory illegal under international law. However as a matter of practical reality, it is now common place. This is altogether regrettable.

That's like saying being punched in the face is cause to start a fight. Once someone decides to strart throwing punches and one lands in your face, you're in a fight.

The idea that it works differently at the international level is asinine. But then again international law is the product of the same brilliant minds launching the bombs in the first place, so I'm not particularly surprised.

[Ad Orientem]

I should probably also have noted that attacking another country without a declaration of war under classical international law was generally considered a war crime. It is one of the charges leveled against both Nazi and Imperial Japanese government officials during the post World War II war crimes trials which ended with a number of them being hanged. Ironically the charge played rather large in the trial of Hideki Tojo, for the attack on Pearl Harbor.

[Libertarian666]

People continue to say that launching cruise missiles from ships into a country to "punish" them for bad behavior isn't a war.

That's like saying Pearl Harbor wasn't a war until we declared war on Japan.  I'm sorry, but everyone pushing that line of thinking is an idiot.  Launching cruise missiles into a country is absolutely a declaration of war and if they think it's not, then I want them to do a little thought exercise on what our response would be if another country did that to us.  Even assume they didn't hit anything vital and took out some small towns or something with no strategic importance.

Such hypocrisy.

No, that's different. The US government is wonderful and always right about everything, so anything they don't like is bad, and anyone that attacks their property (us) is also bad.

Hope that helps. 

[Benko]

"One senior State Department official, though, told Fox News that the president’s goal to take military action will indeed be carried out, regardless of whether Congress votes to approve the use of force."

In case anyone thought that a. one could believe what he says, or b. that he cares what anyone thinks when he wants to do  something. 

Remember the Obama and Romney are not significantly different crowd?  I'd really love to hear anyone who can still find a way to  believe that (and I mean Obama the I'll do WTF I want, not how interventionalist both of them are)

[RuralEngineer]

"One senior State Department official, though, told Fox News that the president’s goal to take military action will indeed be carried out, regardless of whether Congress votes to approve the use of force."

In case anyone thought that a. one could believe what he says, or b. that he cares what anyone thinks when he wants to do  something. 

Remember the Obama and Romney are not significantly different crowd?  I'd really love to hear anyone who can still find a way to  believe that (and I mean Obama the I'll do WTF I want, not how interventionalist both of them are)

I saw this story earlier and got a chuckle.  In case Congress had gotten any thoughts into their heads that Obama sees them as anything other than his big expensive rubber stamp, here's a big glass of ice water down their pants to wake them up and remind them otherwise.  Then again, these people are so deluded, I'm sure they'll probably manage to convince themselves that whatever debate they hold will actually be meaningful.

Honestly, since there's precedent for the War Powers Act being abused to death, grow some balls and pass a bill to strengthen it expressly forbidding all the crap that Obama is about to do.  NO, you don't get to go around bombing other countries and committing war crimes, as Ad Orientem pointed out, without Congress declaring war first (in which case it's not a war crime, arguably).  End of story.  Then impeach his ass if he tries any funny business.

[Jan Van]

... I want them to do a little thought exercise on what our response would be if another country did that to us.

Hehe.... My thought exercise has been, what if China executes a drone attack at some Chinese dissident or Falun Gung supporter, somewhere in California. I'm sure those are considered terrorists in China...

[Benko]

Romney would also have done whatever he wanted (he'd have bombed Syria).  The difference would be that he wouldn't have handled the whole situation so clumsily.

I still don't get it.  Don't you have to be a special breed of moron to want to get involved in ANOTHER middle east conflict?  I suppose I could see if you didn't have the current messes in ...Iraq, Afghanistan, Egypt  I'm probably forgetting things.

[Mdraf]

I somehow think that this is all bluster and nothing will happen. Some mediator (Jimmy Carter ?) or a UN guy will pop out to "mediate". Obama will jump at the opportunity to do nothing and go back to his golf.

We can hope.

Looks like golf won (as usual)

[Libertarian666]

"One senior State Department official, though, told Fox News that the president’s goal to take military action will indeed be carried out, regardless of whether Congress votes to approve the use of force."

In case anyone thought that a. one could believe what he says, or b. that he cares what anyone thinks when he wants to do  something. 

Remember the Obama and Romney are not significantly different crowd?  I'd really love to hear anyone who can still find a way to  believe that (and I mean Obama the I'll do WTF I want, not how interventionalist both of them are)

They're both neocons, and are essentially indistinguishable in foreign policy. I think Romney would have been better on financial matters, at least in being less aggressive toward other countries in tax issues.

[MediumTex]

I still don't get it.  Don't you have to be a special breed of moron to want to get involved in ANOTHER middle east conflict?  I suppose I could see if you didn't have the current messes in ...Iraq, Afghanistan, Egypt  I'm probably forgetting things.

I think that you framed the question perfectly.  The answer is YES, it does take a special breed or moron, and it is exactly this breed of moron who tends to find success in American politics.

Carter bungled Iran.  Letting Iran control the narrative of over a year of his presidency was totally moronic.

Reagan bungled Lebanon in the form of 241 dead Marines in Beirut in 1983.  As far as selling weapons to Iran as part of the Iran Contra scandal, I don't even know what to call that, but moronic is a pretty good word.

Bush Sr. bungled Iraq.  He told them we didn't care about their border dispute with Kuwait and then decided that we did, and took us to war over it.  THEN, after taking us into an unnecessary war, he failed to finish it off, setting the stage for ANOTHER Iraq war 12 years later.  Textbook moron. 

Clinton bungled Iraq again by preserving the ridiculous status quo of enforcing the no fly zone over Iraq, while building up Prince Sultan Air Base in Saudi Arabia as a critical U.S. military facility, which was completely moronic.  One of the reasons Osama bin Laden cited for 9/11 was U.S. military presence in Saudi Arabia.  Apparently, the U.S. agreed that Prince Sultan Air Base was more trouble that it was worth when it moved its operations to Qatar in the early 2000s, even though Prince Sultan Air Base had been built at an expense of more than $1 billion.

Bush Jr.'s moron-ism in the Middle East needs little comment, other than to say that Iraq and the WMD fiasco was astonishingly moronic.

Obama bungled Libya through whatever did or didn't happen at Benghazi.  He bungled Egypt by filing to grasp that the rebels were perhaps not the idealistic democrats he imagined them to be.  He is now in the process of bungling Syria, which will make a sort of "Middle East Moron Trifecta" for him.

The U.S. moron-politician class has a long tradition of bungling matters in the Middle East.  I would say that no U.S. President's administration is complete without at least one REALLY moronic Middle East experience.

[RuralEngineer]

Romney would also have done whatever he wanted (he'd have bombed Syria).  The difference would be that he wouldn't have handled the whole situation so clumsily.

While you are probably right, it's less a statement about Romney's competence and more about how incompetent and bumbling Obama is on foreign policy that most anyone would handle the situation better...even though the end result would be the same.

If anything, maybe his clumsy bumbling will work in our favor and we can dodge this bullet somehow.  I can see it now...he addresses Congress to push for action on Syria, someone misplaces the teleprompters, he stutters like Porky Pig, we get to keep our money, and the Syrians don't get bombed.  It could happen...

[doodle]

So just to play devils advocate again, is there nothing that the world community should do when the leader of a country and his military force decides to release chemical weapons on innocent civilians? Does this not set a dangerous precedent if we allow this type of behavior to go unchecked by any dictator who has access to such weapons? What if he started nuking his people, or rounding them up by the millions women and children  and herding them into gas chambers? Do we stand by and watch? Would we stand by and watch if this were happening in Mexico? What about on an individual level, if a man was torturing his wife next door?

[RuralEngineer]

So just to play devils advocate again, is there nothing that the world community should do when the leader of a country and his military force decides to release chemical weapons on innocent civilians? Does this not set a dangerous precedent if we allow this type of behavior to go unchecked by any dictator who has access to such weapons? What if he started nuking his people, or rounding them up by the millions women and children  and herding them into gas chambers? Do we stand by and watch? Would we stand by and watch if this were happening in Mexico? What about on an individual level, if a man was torturing his wife next door?

Nuke's have radioactive fallout that would spread to other countries.  That's an international concern.

As for a man torturing his wife next door, that's illegal in 1st world countries and you just have to call the police and report it.  Besides, this is a civil war.  Your analogy is flawed.  The rebels are fighting back and Assad has civilian support.

I for one don't want a precedent set for international involvement in civil wars.  Suppose we have to overthrow our government at some point and the U.N. decides it has to gather a "Coalition of the Willing" to support our beleaguered government.  Russian, Chinese, and Latin American troops wearing blue helmets are called in to put down the "rebels" for humanitarian reasons.  Hopefully a far fetched scenario, but in order to make sure it stays that way, the international community needs to stay out of civil wars.

[Benko]

Doodle,

"Does this not set a dangerous precedent if we allow this type of behavior to go unchecked by any dictator who has access to such weapons?"

Did your posts say the same thing when Bush was president and contemplated interventions?

Does not the current administrations uniform lack of competence (e.g. Bengazi, Egypt, etc.) matter to you at all when contemplating more interventions?

Does not the fact that we are already involved in numerous countries in the middle east change how you would think about becoming involved in yet another one?

So just to play devils advocate again,

ALso, and for your personal growth, most importantly, part of the spiritual stuff which you are interested in, is learning to recognize patterns in one's mind i.e. habitual ways we have of behaving/reacting.  One of your patterns seems to be to intervene in others in attempts to do good.  You might look at this impulse e.g. where does it come from?  WHy are you behving this way? How often does it result in good outcomes i.e. are others who you wish to help really better off when you intervene, than when you don't?

[Jan Van]

...is there nothing that the world community should do when the leader of a country and his military force decides to release chemical weapons on innocent civilians?

Why doesn't the Arab League step up and put some Fatwa on their brother Assad for being naughty, tell the world gassing your people is against Sharia law, and that they pray for punishment to be rained down from the skies? Then they can send a check for a couple hundred million $$$ c/o the infidels in America. Even better, maybe they could do it themselves, they must have some decent gear bought from the west?

[doodle]

So, from your perspective the world should have stood by during WW2 as Hitler exterminated millions of innocent people within Germany? Are there no instances that humans as a species can agree upon which merit intervention for humanitarian reasons? If you were a Jew during WW2 living in a concentration camp as all the neighboring countries looked on helplessly, would your perspective be the same?

I think in someways it is time to move past this anachronistic and arbitrary delineation called the nation state with invisible borders. There are certain behaviors perhaps that we should condemn as a species even if those people dying happen to speak another language. Now, if two warring armies are killing each other like in the American civil war, then I think by and large that is an issue for those two groups. But, I think things change when one militant group begins to exterminate innocent women and children indiscriminately using chemical weapons. Genocide is an affront against all of humanity and it should be condemned internationally. I cannot think of any libertarian that would argue that might gives anyone the right to kill 5 year old children with nerve gas. As I understand libertarian philosophy you believe there are some rights that you are naturally endowed with and are not conferred by a governmental entity like those of property and life. So when one powerful group systematically seeks to destroy another and violates those tenets of libertarianism, it doesn't concern you?

Life is so simple and easy when you happen to be king of the mountain and part of the powerful majority. My guess is that if you and your family were kosovan, chechnyan, Hutu or Tutsi, Christian Sudanese, Kurdish or otherwise your perspectives regarding this issue would be different.

[doodle]

I should also say, I'm not saying the US should actively participate I'm the war and choose a side. Just like a referee doesn't participate in a fight but will penalize one fighter for punching below the belt.It should simply condemn and try to protect those innocents who are being caught in the middle through no fault of their own. Currently Assad thinks he can get away with killing whatever innocent people he wants instead of just enemy combatants. A strong message should be sent to him that says we will not allow him to conduct genocide in the 21st century.

[Libertarian666]

So just to play devils advocate again, is there nothing that the world community should do when the leader of a country and his military force decides to release chemical weapons on innocent civilians? Does this not set a dangerous precedent if we allow this type of behavior to go unchecked by any dictator who has access to such weapons? What if he started nuking his people, or rounding them up by the millions women and children  and herding them into gas chambers? Do we stand by and watch? Would we stand by and watch if this were happening in Mexico? What about on an individual level, if a man was torturing his wife next door?

Making war kills people. If "leader" A orders his troops to kill people, they should defy him. Of course, they usually don't, for various reasons. Nonetheless, when they kill people who have not been given a fair trial by an impartial judge and jury, they are murderers.

Whether a dictator kills "his own" people or "other" people, they are still just as dead. Since he does not in fact own anyone, this distinction is logically and morally meaningless.

So if a "Leader" orders nuclear weapons (or any weapons) to be used against civilians, he is inciting to murder, and is as guilty of murder if the orders are obeyed as those actually doing the murder.

Therefore, every US president who has ever ordered a military operation to kill people (most US presidents) is a murderer, most of them easily qualifying as mass murderers.

Thus, the world community should have tried and executed all of those presidents.

The same of course holds true for all other "leaders" who have ordered military operations to kill people.

Hope that helps.

[doodle]

Ok, so everyone is a murderer. Now what? Libertarianism is a beautiful philosophy until it crashes head first into the conflictual reality of life on planet earth. A philosophy that acknowledges that innocent noncombatitive women and children are being killed by a genocidal maniac and says there is nothing to be done in my opinion is not a very effective or realistic philosophy.

[Benko]

So, from your perspective the world should have stood by during WW2 as Hitler exterminated

How many wars have occurred between now and Hitler?   

Are you aware that your mind is cherry picking i.e. choosing one of the few wars that supports your point of view and ignoring all the ones that don't? 

This is like ignoring many many pieces of data which support global warming (assuming you believe in it) and ignoring all the other data points which don't.