Syria

[doodle]

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.

I guess I draw a distinction between wars that involve killing enemy combatants and wars that intentionally target innocent non combative civilians based on their ethnicity or religion. Syria is complicated and who knows, maybe we shouldn't go in. But I don't think sovereign borders justify allowing a particular group of people to systematcally kill defenseless and innocent civilians. Genocide is not something that I believe the international community of nations should condone. If a situation like the holocaust were to arise again, I think interference is justified.

[Benko]

If a situation like the holocaust were to arise again, I think interference is justified.

I agree.  But we are not in isolationville needing a prod to get involved in the really important ones.  We are like an alcoholic who can't pass a bar without going in.

[Libertarian666]

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. 

We can hope.

Upthread, Mdraf snarked about Obama playing golf instead of paying attention to Syria.  Well, in my book, Obama's playing golf and ignoring Syria is a "win-win".

+1.

[Jan Van]

More food for thought...

http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/20 ... tervention

[RuralEngineer]

I guess I draw a distinction between wars that involve killing enemy combatants and wars that intentionally target innocent non combative civilians based on their ethnicity or religion. Syria is complicated and who knows, maybe we shouldn't go in. But I don't think sovereign borders justify allowing a particular group of people to systematcally kill defenseless and innocent civilians. Genocide is not something that I believe the international community of nations should condone. If a situation like the holocaust were to arise again, I think interference is justified.

As near as I can tell Syria is nothing like the Holocaust.  It's a civil war.  The rebel faction is fighting back (hence the talk about arming them and the worry about their Al Qaeda affiliations).  Maybe not an evenly matched civil war and the civilians associated with the rebels are being targeted, but they aren't being peacefully rounded up and then exterminated without resistance like in WWII.  You aren't even seeing the one sided slaughter like there was in Rwanda. 

If there were a determination of genocide and a true international coalition formed that included the Arab League (since this is their damn back yard), then I wouldn't have a problem participating in some kind of action to resolve the situation.  But that's not what happens.  Everyone expects us to be World Super Cop and it has to stop.  Furthermore, nobody, coalition or otherwise, has any business interfering in a civil war.  There are civilians on both sides and those bombs you seem so stoked for Obama to start dropping are going to kill innocent civilians that back Assad.  You think that they'll be able to get clean military targets?  You think Assad hasn't started moving ordinance into populated areas as soon as we started talking about a strike?  Look at the drone program in Pakistan and our stellar record there.

[MediumTex]

All I know about what is happening in Syria is coming from the news media and the U.S. government, both of which are known to bend the truth to suit their own agendas.

If the rebels decide they can't topple Assad's regime, maybe they should end their rebellion.

The time to do something about the Assad family was decades ago.  At this point, the U.S. has looked the other way so many times for cynical political purposes as people were being slaughtered in that part of the world that it's no surprise that Assad would assume we would do it again in the current conflict, notwithstanding Obama and his "red lines."

When you look at decades of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East, it's hard to say with a straight face that we are just the good guys trying to do some good.  That's the story that is always told to the American people, but "doing good" has almost nothing to do with U.S. policy in the Middle East.

[Jan Van]

Why don't we just send Dennis Rodman to solve their problems?

[Pointedstick]

Yes, the current Democratic president should definitely be allowed to make a terrible foreign policy mistake that kills hundreds or thousands of innocents in order to preserve the ability of future Republicans to make their own terrible foreign policy mistake that kills hundreds or thousands of innocents. Makes sense to me!

[MediumTex]

It looks like Congress is going to go along with the Syria attack plan.

That's a shame.

[Benko]

"there is the important matter of the future–a future that may one day have a Republican in the presidency. The precedent of setting too low a threshold for blocking presidential initiative in foreign affairs is unwise."

I didn't realize that he was that big of an idiot--not only is he suggesting something stupid, but the reason ("setting too low a threshold for blocking presidential initiative ) is beyond dumb.  As if the Democrats will block or not block something a future R president wishes to do based on how the Rs vote now?

On the positive for Obama, it diverts attention from all those fake scandals.

I do take back what I said though--I think yet another stupid intervention overseas might just make e.g Paul more likely to be elected.

[MediumTex]

I guess it will be entertaining to watch as it spins out of control, as these things always do.

I do, however, hope that no one is surprised at the random ways in which the blowback from this event will unfold.

[Reub]

I still find it incredible that some on here are blaming neocons when, as Michael Savage put it succinctly, it is the NEOLIBS who are really driving this bus.

[Libertarian666]

I still find it incredible that some on here are blaming neocons when, as Michael Savage put it succinctly, it is the NEOLIBS who are really driving this bus.

What is the difference?

[Ad Orientem]

I still find it incredible that some on here are blaming neocons when, as Michael Savage put it succinctly, it is the NEOLIBS who are really driving this bus.

What is the difference?

+1

There has been no substantive debate on foreign policy in this country since 1941. It's all variations on interventionism and neo imperialism.

[MediumTex]

I still find it incredible that some on here are blaming neocons when, as Michael Savage put it succinctly, it is the NEOLIBS who are really driving this bus.

What is the difference?

The way that Nixon took over Vietnam from Johnson and the way that Obama took over Afghanistan from Bush demonstrates how little difference there is between the two parties when it comes to the U.S.'s involvement in pointless wars.

War is, after all, just one more big government program, and both parties love big government programs (even though some Republicans are in deep denial about this fact).

[Reub]

What is the difference?

+1

There has been no substantive debate on foreign policy in this country since 1941. It's all variations on interventionism and neo imperialism.

+1

Oh, sure, Obama's driving right now.  But it's the same damn bus.

EDIT: And what is the difference, Reub, between "neolibs" and neocons?

All I'm saying is that it is ironic that the same neolibs who were annhilating Bush and his neocons daily for attacking Iraq are in the forefront in this new intervention. The irony seems lost on them.

[RuralEngineer]

So the neocons get points for consistently wanting to bomb the world while the libs care about who gets to press the button?

Yay?

[clarara]

Isn't the Nobel Peace Prize Swedish? Nevertheless it is Swedish humour... Obama never deserved it.

[Mdraf]

Isn't the Nobel Peace Prize Swedish? Nevertheless it is Swedish humour... Obama never deserved it.

All Nobel prizes except the Peace Prize are Swedish. For some reason I forgot the Peace prize is handled by Norway

[moda0306]

I don't have very strong opinions on foreign policy, but I think there is a difference between limited military intervention to prevent genocide, and putting boots on the ground to a country in an occupational war in a stable country to take a leader out where genocide happened decades ago (when the American government supported said leader), but we have loose suspicions that they might have certain weapons.

I also think there's a difference between starting a war, and continuing a war once we are already there.

Nixon was obviously no saint, but pulling out of Vietnam is much more complex and nuanced a decision than deciding not to go in and pick a side in a war to begin with.

Once we were in Iraq (and Afghanistan), I was less interested in all the logical arguments as to why we shouldn't have gone in, and more interested in how we exit without leaving a complete mess behind.

Just like in business and finance, focusing on sunk-costs as part of a decision tree going forward can be as much of a mistake is blind adherence to staying consistent with a move you've made that may have been a mistake.

As I say this, though, I have very little opinion on this stuff.  It's too complex and involves some pretty nasty choices no matter what you do.  In the end, you're using the US military to drop bombs and kill people.  It's a scary thing to get comfortable justifying on a regular basis.

[MediumTex]

The statement said Russian investigators studied the site, sent the materials they found to study to OPCW sanctioned laboratories in Europe, and followed agreed upon United Nations investigation standards.

According to the statement, the report said the shell “was not regular Syrian army ammunition but was an artisan-type similar to unguided rocket projectiles produced in the north of Syria by the so-called gang ‘Bashair An-Nasr.’ ”?

In addition, Russian investigators determined that the burst charge was RDX, which is “not used in military chemical munitions.”?

The Russian analysis found soil and shell samples contained a sarin gas “not synthesized in an industrial environment,”? the statement said. The report said the chemical mix did not appear to be a modern version of the deadly agent but was closer to those “used by Western states for producing chemical weapons during World War II.”?

i doubt the Russians are any less prone than the US is to lying, or promoting a narrative that benefits their own agenda but if the intelligence about the "who", "what", and "from where", of the gas attack hasn't even begun to approach certainty, and both al quada and Assad are murderous Cretans capable of such an act, i see no reason to attack or begin taking actions against one side over the other....(as Jon Stewart called it "Operation put the tip in")

color me not surprised

The ten Senate Foreign Relations Committee members who voted to attack Syria received 83 percent more campaign contributions from defense contractors than the seven senators who voted against

the average senator who voted “yes”? on the authorization of the use of military force took $72,850 from defense contractors and other defense industry interests. Senators who voted “no”? received just $39,770 on average.

Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain led the pack among those in favor, raking in about $176,000 from defense interests over five years. Illinois Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin garnered $127,000 from the defense industry, followed by Virginia Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine, who picked up a cool $101,000.

* grain of salt... unconfirmed #'s.... taken from biased source..... but it seems about right...

Anyone else think this Syria thing is really about who is going to be selling natural gas to the Europeans?

If the natural gas issue didn't have anything to do with it, why would Russia care as much as it apparently does?

seems likely to me... big energy dollars at stake

Qatar, home to the world’s largest gas field along with Iran, has proposed a gas pipeline from the Gulf to Turkey that would traverse Syria to the Mediterranean, with the gas then being shipped to Europe.

However, Assad in 2009 refused to go along with the plan, instead inking deals with Russia and Iran.

Syria is site of the proposed construction of a massive underground gas pipeline that, if completed, could drastically undercut the strategic energy power of U.S. ally Qatar and also would cut Turkey out of the pipeline flow.

Dubbed the “Islamic pipeline,”? the project may ultimately favor Russia and Iran against Western energy interests.

i have heard rumors that the Saudis have put offers on the table to completely bankroll a full invasion , if they are willing to pay ....there is a reason

[Reub]

I heard some speculation that the face-saving way out for all parties in this is for Syria to agree to allow Russia to custodian their chemical and biological weapons for them. Then all sides can claim victory. 

[Ad Orientem]

Syria is Russia's only strategic ally in the region. They also provide critical basing rights for the Russian Navy in the Mediterranean which would otherwise leave their navy confined to the Black Sea and the vagaries of Turkish foreign policy with their control over the Bosporus. And lastly there is strong public support in Russia for Assad because he has been fairly benevolent in his treatment of religious minorities, most of whom are Orthodox Christians. Excepting during the Communist period Russians have always seen themselves as a nation with the obligation to defend Orthodoxy when it was under attack. This mentality contributed to the outbreak of the First World War.

And of course most of Obama's allies are Muslim extremists who have been sacking churches and murdering Christians since day 1 of this civil war.

[Reub]

After watching Obama's speech to the American public tonight I have this question:

What did Obama give away to Putin in return for Putin's act of saving Obama from a resounding, humiliating "no" vote in the Congress? I am certain that Obama was desperate to find a way to cancel the vote which would have neutered his Presidency, but what did Putin get in return for his lifeline?

[Ad Orientem]

Maybe I'm finally losing it. But I feel like I have somehow blundered into some strange parallel universe where Russia is the moral and responsible great power. Any moment now I expect Rod Serling to walk into my living room and explain that my next stop is the Twilight Zone.