Gyroscopic Investing

Ad Orientem wrote: 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.

LOL. Brilliant!

Ad Orientem wrote: 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.

Did I miss something?  What did Russia do to induce this comment?

moda0306 wrote:

Ad Orientem wrote: 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.

Did I miss something?  What did Russia do to induce this comment?

Russia has been the only country making loud complaints about the systemic attacks on Christian minorities by Islamic extremists in Syria and other corners of the Middle East like Egypt. While neither the US nor Europe have shown the slightest interest the Russians have been shipping large amounts of humanitarian aid to Christians who have had their homes and businesses seized or destroyed and their churches sacked. The Russians have been trying to organize an all party peace conference in Geneva to broker an end to the civil war, but again neither Europe no the US have shown any interest in a settlement that might leave Assad in power over any of Syria. And now we have Putin trying to organize the surrender of chemical weapons to forestall more bloodshed and war.

This Syria thing has more twists and turns than a Mexican soap opera.

If I could have a moment with Obama, I would ask him "Dude, WHAT are you doing?"

I don't think I've ever seen a foreign policy situation where the President seemed more indecisive.

Personally, I was hoping that the congressional vote would take place. If the congress denied authorization as many thought they would it could have been a historical moment in U.S. history.

notsheigetz wrote: Personally, I was hoping that the congressional vote would take place. If the congress denied authorization as many thought they would it could have been a historical moment in U.S. history.

I agree.

Reub wrote: 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?

I'm not convinced about the premise of your question...if the US congress votes against an unprovoked military assault...Putin's diplomacy is only strengthened.

moda0306 wrote:

Ad Orientem wrote: 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.

Did I miss something?  What did Russia do to induce this comment?

A.O.....this is not totally unnoticed

murphy_p_t wrote:

Reub wrote: 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?

I'm not convinced about the premise of your question...if the US congress votes against an unprovoked military assault...Putin's diplomacy is only strengthened.

Isn't this really not to do at all with provocation, but instead about genocide?  If a country is committing mass genocide against their people, even if they pose no threat to the US, usually we aren't necessarily looked at "undiplomatic" if we try to stop it.

I'm not arguing for intervention, as I really don't know any of the facts, but I don't see preventing continued genocide as something that is akin to pre-emptive strikes.

I don't think it's genocide that's going on there.  I think the major international issue is the use of chemical weapons.  The argument is that if chemical weapons are blatantly used for all to see, and the world ignores it, then the taboo against their use will go away.

moda0306 wrote: I'm not arguing for intervention, as I really don't know any of the facts, but I don't see preventing continued genocide as something that is akin to pre-emptive strikes.

Ask yourself this: should Turkey act to prevent a continued genocide? Should Bolivia? Finland? Cameroon? Who gave us the moral authority and very grave responsibility for ending the world's suffering? I didn't vote for that.

Xan wrote: I don't think it's genocide that's going on there.  I think the major international issue is the use of chemical weapons.  The argument is that if chemical weapons are blatantly used for all to see, and the world ignores it, then the taboo against their use will go away.

Are you saying that you think chemical weapons shouldn't be taboo?

moda0306 wrote:

Xan wrote: I don't think it's genocide that's going on there.  I think the major international issue is the use of chemical weapons.  The argument is that if chemical weapons are blatantly used for all to see, and the world ignores it, then the taboo against their use will go away.

Are you saying that you think chemical weapons shouldn't be taboo?

I don't. Is getting gassed any worse than being machine-gunned, bombed, or burned alive? Or heck, getting your limbs hacked off with a sword? Or having diseased cows hurled over your wall? Or being beaten to death with a blunt object? Or poisoned?

I mean, we're talking about destroying human bodies in an efficient manner. IMHO, it's hard to say that method A is more barbaric or shocking than method B. The point is still to end human life in the fastest, most efficient, or most demoralizing manner possible.

Pointedstick wrote:

moda0306 wrote: I'm not arguing for intervention, as I really don't know any of the facts, but I don't see preventing continued genocide as something that is akin to pre-emptive strikes.

Ask yourself this: should Turkey act to prevent a continued genocide? Should Bolivia? Finland? Cameroon? Who gave us the moral authority and very grave responsibility for ending the world's suffering? I didn't vote for that.

It probably should be an international effort, generally speaking.

Who said anything about "ending the world's suffering?"  I'm talking about stopping genocides in their tracks if we can apply political and maybe military pressure when they rear their ugly heads.

I'm not talking about any more than that, really.  One doesn't need to be an Imperialist to think that just maybe there are some situations where our military might can be used to prevent some of the worst atrocities.

moda0306 wrote:

Xan wrote: I don't think it's genocide that's going on there.  I think the major international issue is the use of chemical weapons.  The argument is that if chemical weapons are blatantly used for all to see, and the world ignores it, then the taboo against their use will go away.

Are you saying that you think chemical weapons shouldn't be taboo?

Sure, they should be.  I see this as the best argument for Doing Something (tm).  I think they're different from conventional warfare in that their effects are much less direct than that of a machine gun.  You finish firing a machine gun and it's over.  You finish gassing people, and you could have environmental and genetic problems for a long, long time.

Xan wrote: I think they're different from conventional warfare in that their effects are much less direct than that of a machine gun.  You finish firing a machine gun and it's over.  You finish gassing people, and you could have environmental and genetic problems for a long, long time.

You firebomb a city, it could spread to a forest and destroy the ecology of the entire area.

You drop landmines, and it renders the entire area dangerous to civilians for years.

You kill with drones and it creates a palpable sense of terror and helplessness among the entire population.

You fire depleted uranium rounds and people still get cancer decades later--including those who fired them!

Where is genocide going on? I missed that memo.

Ad Orientem wrote: Where is genocide going on? I missed that memo.

I wasn't claiming it was necessarily... just that there doesn't have to be a looming threat to US security interests for there to be a very real moral case for action.

In general, I think laying chemical weapons on a civilian population is possibly grounds for action.  I just don't know enough of the facts in this case to argue for or against it.

Pointedstick wrote:

Xan wrote: I think they're different from conventional warfare in that their effects are much less direct than that of a machine gun.  You finish firing a machine gun and it's over.  You finish gassing people, and you could have environmental and genetic problems for a long, long time.

You firebomb a city, it could spread to a forest and destroy the ecology of the entire area.

You drop landmines, and it renders the entire area dangerous to civilians for years.

You kill with drones and it creates a palpable sense of terror and helplessness among the entire population.

You fire depleted uranium rounds and people still get cancer decades later--including those who fired them!

How about using un-depleted uranium (or plutonium) weapons to kill hundreds of thousands of civilians? Any government that would do that should definitely be subject to severe sanctions by all civilized countries!

(Oh, wait...)

Libertarian666 wrote: How about using un-depleted uranium (or plutonium) weapons to kill hundreds of thousands of civilians? Any government that would do that should definitely be subject to severe sanctions by all civilized countries!

(Oh, wait...)

Similarly, any nation that forcibly kidnaps and imprisons ethnic minorities in armed camps is a barbari--oh, wait...

moda0306 wrote: In general, I think laying chemical weapons on a civilian population is possibly grounds for action.  I just don't know enough of the facts in this case to argue for or against it.

No comment - I'll just let a picture be worth a thousand words.....

moda0306 wrote:

Ad Orientem wrote: Where is genocide going on? I missed that memo.

I wasn't claiming it was necessarily... just that there doesn't have to be a looming threat to US security interests for there to be a very real moral case for action.

In general, I think laying chemical weapons on a civilian population is possibly grounds for action.  I just don't know enough of the facts in this case to argue for or against it.

I think that's a debatable proposition. However in this situation we have two sides in a bloody civil war, where both have a well established track record of committing atrocities. Chemical weapons are admittedly very nasty, but their victims are no less dead than those shot, blown to pieces, burnt to a crisp, bayoneted or otherwise enlisted into the ranks of the Great Majority. Further there is nothing particularly singular about Syria's tragedy. Civil war's by their very nature tend to be brutish and ugly affairs. And if we are going to start bombing people on the basis of their human rights records, I'm sorry but Mr. Assad needs to take a number. If human rights are the criteria for bombing people, North Korea is at the top of that rather long list.

I await with baited breath President Obama's speech asking for authority to launch a war on North Korea.

notsheigetz wrote:

moda0306 wrote: In general, I think laying chemical weapons on a civilian population is possibly grounds for action.  I just don't know enough of the facts in this case to argue for or against it.

No comment - I'll just let a picture be worth a thousand words.....

I really don't understand this picture and would love to have you elaborate it.  It certainly doesn't look pleasant.

If thug dictators using chemical weapons on their own people bothers us so much, why did we stand by and do nothing in the 1980s when Assad's dad did it and when Saddam Hussein did it?

This whole chemical weapons story is just a cover for a lot of stuff that must be going on that would probably make us all embarrassed to be Americans.

Any time we are shown pictures of dead women and children and asked to go along with something like attacking another country that hasn't threatened us in any way, I get suspicious.

I knew this Syria thing wouldn't end well; I just didn't realize how quickly things would go awry.  The U.S. hasn't even fired a missile yet, and the wheels have already completely fallen off of whatever strategy Obama may have had.

I sort of cringed when Obama named John Kerry as his Secretary of State.  It would be hard to find a more self-important clod than that guy.  The only bigger moron that Obama has selected for a key aide was Joe Biden, but if he selects Larry Summers as the next Fed chief, Kerry will have some competition in the Obama moron-a-thon.

If Obama asked me what he should do about Syria, I would tell him "Mr. President, I recommend that you quit while you're behind on this one.  Just do what Reagan and Bush Sr. did when faced with the chance to do something about a cruel tyrant who gassed or otherwise slaughtered his own people (i.e., Assad Sr. and Saddam Hussein)--just leave him alone as long as he's not bothering you, or if he is otherwise providing you with some useful dirty work."

moda0306 wrote: I really don't understand this picture and would love to have you elaborate it.  It certainly doesn't look pleasant.

The picture shows the 3rd generation results of the use of the chemical weapon "Agent Orange" used by the U.S. in the  Vietnam war. There are orphanages all over the country housing children born with horrific birth defects. You can do a Google image search on "Agent Orange Vietnam" and find even worse pictures.

Agent Orange was a chemical defoliant used to kill vegetation for the purpose of destroying enemy cover. It was not directly sprayed on humans unless they happened to be in the area at the time but the environmental effects have been  long-lasting. (For the record, it was another chemical, napalm, that was directly sprayed on humans).

The point of posting the picture was that I just find the U.S. now appointing itself to be the punisher of anyone using chemical weapons 40 years later to be somewhat hypocritical.