|
BeefThief posted:It's clear the US doesn't really want to do anything anyway, so why doesn't Obama say he's not going to launch any strike without congressional approval? Then, when it's voted down (or not) he can say "Welp, I guess we're not killing anybody, but we're going to continue our support for the rebels and step up humanitarian aid"? At this point it's not even clear we want a rebel victory...what exactly is in the strategic interests of the US? Personally, I think he switched to a purposefully interventionist stance with that redline speech. He might have wanted to stay out of it before, but he "upped the ante" when he gave it.
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 16:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 16:07 |
|
|
BeefThief posted:It's clear the US doesn't really want to do anything anyway, so why doesn't Obama say he's not going to launch any strike without congressional approval? Then, when it's voted down (or not) he can say "Welp, I guess we're not killing anybody, but we're going to continue our support for the rebels and step up humanitarian aid"? At this point it's not even clear we want a rebel victory...what exactly is in the strategic interests of the US? Im kinda surprised John McCain and other neocons like Kristol haven't been more vocal about intervention. They usually jump at the chance to bomb people.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 16:17
|
|
|
BeefThief posted:It's clear the US doesn't really want to do anything anyway Why does anyone think this kind of thing? If the US didn't want to do anything, they wouldn't do anything. They wouldn't even bring it up, the same way as they treat the crimes of the Saudis, or the wars in Sudan, Congo, and Rwanda. The Obama administration and US military are the only entities on the planet Earth that are actively pushing for a military campaign. The notion that they are just helpless leaves on the winds of fate is laughable.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 16:19
|
|
|
Tezzor posted:Libya was also illegal. Libya wasn't illegal.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 16:22
|
|
|
Saint Celestine posted:Im kinda surprised John McCain and other neocons like Kristol haven't been more vocal about intervention. Yes, but that's when some "respected" neocons are suggesting the bombing in the first place. Syria is more like the time you and your buddies are at the bar and your drunk friend goes, "HEY MAN, IF YOU DO THAT AGAIN I"LL gently caress YOU UP." And then some idiot (see: Syria) pushes your drunk friend. Now you are in that tense moment where your drunk friend is puffing himself up and saying "HOLD ME BACK BRO. HOLD ME BACK BRO." And you and your not-so-drunk friends are trying to calm poo poo down and the whole bar is now making fun of your entire posse.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 16:23
|
|
|
Tezzor posted:Why does anyone think this kind of thing? If the US didn't want to do anything, they wouldn't do anything. They wouldn't even bring it up, the same way as they treat the crimes of the Saudis, or the wars in Sudan, Congo, and Rwanda. The Obama administration and US military are the only entities on the planet Earth that are actively pushing for a military campaign. The notion that they are just helpless leaves on the winds of fate is laughable. Because they don't really want to do anything? It seems like we only got roped into this because of Obama's silly speech. Look at what were planning. A limited cruise missile strike. What is that going to accomplish? Jack-loving-all. None of the military actions being presented are capable of doing anything to seriously threaten the regime. Edit: look at the big deal the administration has made of threatening military action. These actions are more for show rather than for effect. Saint Celestine fucked around with this message at 16:28 on Aug 30, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 16:24
|
|
|
Saint Celestine posted:Because they don't really want to do anything? It seems like we only got roped into this because of Obama's silly speech. Look at what were planning. A limited cruise missile strike. What is that going to accomplish? Jack-loving-all. "Roped into it?" By who? Who tricked them into a plan to bomb Syria? Is your criticism really that this war isn't going to go far enough?
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 16:28
|
|
|
Theres absolutely no domestic support for a prolonged war in Syria. I think support for military action is hovering around 10%? Do you honestly believe the administration really wants to get bogged down in yet another middle eastern clusterfuck? We stayed the hell out of for the past two years, and only got prompted into military action because of chemical weapons, and only cause we threatened retaliation if they were used. They were most likely used, so we have to do something. Pulling a page of the Clinton playbook and launching some missiles appears to do something, so we can say that we did something, and the use of chemical weapons won't be tolerated. Does it affect the regime or actually stop the use of chemical weapons in any way? gently caress no it doesn't. In fact, it may even be worse in the long run, since Assad can see the weak response, and just escalate the usage of chemical weapons, knowing that the west doesn't have the stomach to put up a real response.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 16:37
|
|
|
Tezzor posted:"Roped into it?" By who? Who tricked them into a plan to bomb Syria? Is your criticism really that this war isn't going to go far enough? Granted, there is that weird thing were the public doesn't want to go into a war, but really doesn't want to feel like the US "lost" with a failed strike. Basically, they're against intervention and probably also against a intervention that doesn't do anything but embarrasses us.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 16:40
|
|
|
QUILT_MONSTER_420 posted:Remember when the Reagan administration practiced studied acquiescence to Iraq's use of chemical weapons against the Iranians? For like 5 years? Sorry, but it goes back a lot earlier than that. The US occupation of the Philippines back before WWII was brutal and quite bloody, and I'm pretty sure we propped up some corporate-friendly dictators as early as the 1910s. US disregard for the welfare of foreign civilians, as well as our willingness to support monsters for the sake of capitalism, go back far beyond the Cold War. Tezzor posted:What legal right does one country have to declare that another country can't do something inside its own borders, especially when said laws are selectively enforced and the offending country had neither agreed to these laws nor had any say in their design? The right to do whatever they want as long as no one is willing to do something to stop them. I find "international law" to be a bit of a misleading term, because it's really more like "international custom" with no formal arbiter or enforcement agent, and therefore talking about it in a contextless void is often meaningless. There's not really any such thing as "legal rights" on the international stage beyond "actions no other country will bother to interfere with".
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 16:42
|
|
|
Saint Celestine posted:Theres absolutely no domestic support for a prolonged war in Syria. I think support for military action is hovering around 10%? Yes I'm sure that if America doesn't start a pointless bombing campaign, Assad will turn into an evil mastermind straight from 007 movies and use chemical weapons without restrain, while the rest of the world goes "oh well".
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 16:42
|
|
|
A 'chemical weapons expert' urges more caution: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/08/30/syria-sarin-claims_n_3843049.html?1377876797
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 16:42
|
|
|
Cippalippus posted:Yes I'm sure that if America doesn't intervene, Assad will use chemical weapons without restrain, while the rest of the world goes "oh well". Fixed that for you.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 16:44
|
|
|
Cippalippus posted:Yes I'm sure that if America doesn't start a pointless bombing campaign, Assad will turn into an evil mastermind straight from 007 movies and use chemical weapons without restrain, while the rest of the world goes "oh well". I'm not saying he's going to go all out and just blanket the country with em, but continued limited usage might occur.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 16:44
|
|
|
Saint Celestine posted:Do you honestly believe the administration really wants to get bogged down in yet another middle eastern clusterfuck? Yes. It's the logical conclusion when the commentariat kicks into "we have to do something!" overdrive, when (as you note) actual support among the public is extremely low, probably with a helping hand from your friendly corporate neighbors Raytheon and Lockheed Martin. You can see this same split playing out even more starkly in the UK, where the MPs are having nothing to do with it. Very Serious People know we need to do something about Assad. You want to be a Very Serious Person and get invited to the cool cocktail parties, right? e: Speak of the devil: Clash With Syria Could be a Windfall for Tomahawk Missile Maker Raytheon quote:According to Politico, the war drums have raised calls in Washington for the Pentagon to buy more than the 196 Tomahawk missiles it purchases each year, which is just enough to maintain the supply chain. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 16:49 on Aug 30, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 16:46
|
|
|
Saint Celestine posted:Theres absolutely no domestic support for a prolonged war in Syria. I think support for military action is hovering around 10%? It's strangely telling that "take no military action whatsoever," the policy preferred by not only a majority of this country but also the popular opinions and governments of all other countries, is an option that literally does not exist as a possibility in your mind. Tezzor fucked around with this message at 16:50 on Aug 30, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 16:47
|
|
|
Saint Celestine posted:I'm not saying he's going to go all out and just blanket the country with em, but continued limited usage might occur. I disagree. Even the famed frantic telephone call hinted that they never intended to use chemical weapons (even because conventional weapons have killed people just fine, so far); the only way to make sure it doesn't happen again is to take them from Assad, with negotiation. The guy is a lot more rational than a lot of people here believe he is. edit: vvvvv hah, didn't have to wait much for it vvvv
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 16:47
|
|
|
Saint Celestine posted:I'm not saying he's going to go all out and just blanket the country with em, but continued limited usage might occur. Frankly to be honest, even more bombing wouldn't fix that since Assad is an "insane madmen" and it seems the Syrian government doesn't need much to launch a strike if those youtube videos are believed (frankly I wish there would be a professional analysis of that stuff).
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 16:48
|
|
|
Meanwhile in Egypt, a much smaller crowd protests in favor of Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood, and demand Sisi be executed. http://bigstory.ap.org/article/egypt-policeman-killed-cairo-ahead-protests
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 16:48
|
|
|
Saint Celestine posted:Im kinda surprised John McCain and other neocons like Kristol haven't been more vocal about intervention. Yeah, that has surprised me as well. McCain jumped into the national consciousness when he went on TV criticizing Clinton for not being aggressive enough in Yugoslavia.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 16:50
|
|
|
Cippalippus posted:I disagree. Even the famed frantic telephone call hinted that they never intended to use chemical weapons (even because conventional weapons have killed people just fine, so far); the only way to make sure it doesn't happen again is to take them from Assad, with negotiation. The guy is a lot more rational than a lot of people here believe he is. So what should we (the international community) give him when we negotiate the chemical weapons away, how much of a profit should he turn for gassing his own people?
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 16:50
|
|
|
Tatum Girlparts posted:So what should we (the international community) give him when we negotiate the chemical weapons away, how much of a profit should he turn for gassing his own people? "Give them up or we'll bomb you". If he doesn't give them up, you have your casus belli, if he does give them up, you solve the situation without wasting money (and possibly american lives).
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 16:54
|
|
|
Cippalippus posted:"Give them up or we'll bomb you". If he doesn't give them up, you have your casus belli, if he does give them up, you solve the situation without wasting money (and possibly american lives). Isn't that Saddam Hussein 2003 part II?
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 16:55
|
|
|
Cippalippus posted:"Give them up or we'll bomb you". If he doesn't give them up, you have your casus belli, if he does give them up, you solve the situation without wasting money (and possibly american lives). So bombing is ok after go through the kabuki dance of 'give us your chemical weapons' 'no'? What has made you think Assad would give them up? Do you really think the people in charge haven't explored that option?
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 16:56
|
|
|
Tezzor posted:It's strangely telling that "take no military action whatsoever," the policy preferred by not only a majority of this country but also the popular opinions and governments of all other countries, is an option that literally does not exist as a possibility in your mind. If the administration never made the red line speech, I would probably agree that we wouldn't take any military action. But we made the speech, and now its time to do something, however insignificant that may be. Also I don't blame everyone for not wanting to get involved. Theres no set battle lines, theres no clear objective- it looks like (and is) a massive middle eastern clusterfuck.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 16:57
|
|
|
Cippalippus posted:"Give them up or we'll bomb you". If he doesn't give them up, you have your casus belli, if he does give them up, you solve the situation without wasting money (and possibly american lives). Precedence already establishes "giving it up" as the fastest way to be invaded and murdered. And yet again, there is still no actual proof that chemical weapons were used. Theoretical question here: What is your stance if evidence comes in proving, beyond any doubt at all, that rebels released chemical weapons either on purpose or accident? Do you support an international intervention to crush them entirely? How do you feel about droning their child soldiers?
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 16:59
|
|
|
Cippalippus posted:"Give them up or we'll bomb you". If he doesn't give them up, you have your casus belli, if he does give them up, you solve the situation without wasting money (and possibly american lives). That is not a casus belli, that is a flimsy excuse for imperial action. Syria is not acting aggressively against the USA at all. Unless the UN approves action, the US acting alone would be pretty bad and certainly the US would not acting under any casus belli.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 16:59
|
|
|
Vladimir Putin posted:Isn't that Saddam Hussein 2003 part II? No because this time there are actually weapons to surrender, unlike last time when it was just poo poo made up by a war criminal to support his friends with stocks in defense companies. Tatum Girlparts posted:So bombing is ok after go through the kabuki dance of 'give us your chemical weapons' 'no'? If you shoot someone it's murder, if you shoot him after you've been threatened it's not the same. Initiating a military intervention without asking anything in exchange, which is what you (and not only you of course) want to do is something that was in vogue in europe in the early 40s. Any sane leader wants to avoid war, so what is Obama doing to prevent this war? Pro-PRC Laowai posted:Precedence already establishes "giving it up" as the fastest way to be invaded and murdered. And yet again, there is still no actual proof that chemical weapons were used. Are you asking me? If you are asking me, I still think that no kind of intervention must start without negotiations which obviously include Assad and Russia. Should those fail, it would be another story, but negotiations must be done. Cippalippus fucked around with this message at 17:03 on Aug 30, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 17:00
|
|
|
Pro-PRC Laowai posted:Precedence already establishes "giving it up" as the fastest way to be invaded and murdered. And yet again, there is still no actual proof that chemical weapons were used. So full on truther here that there weren't even chemical weapons at all? That's what we're doing now? And another thing, can you PROVE there even IS a Syrian army? I thought not!
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 17:02
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Yes. It's the logical conclusion Right, like our noted ongoing quagmire in Libya that has bogged down huge parts of the US military. Wait a minute...... Tatum Girlparts posted:So full on truther here that there weren't even chemical weapons at all? That's what we're doing now? Can you even prove there's a Syria? 
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 17:02
|
|
|
Cippalippus posted:Any sane leader wants to avoid war, so what is Obama doing to prevent this war? And what is he supposed to do to prevent/stop it?
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 17:03
|
|
|
Copley Depot posted:The US has let this war go on without getting involved so far. Why would you think Obama is at all eager for a war? I wasn't clear. This war = the american intervention in Syria. Not the civil war. Sorry. euphronius posted:That is not a casus belli, that is a flimsy excuse for imperial action. I know it's not a casus belli, but it would be more justifiable than Obama's retarded "red lines" and "we gotta do something!" schemes being pushed around here as truth.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 17:04
|
|
|
quote:The source said Miliband had also been disappointed by the language of a government source, who told The Times: "No 10 and the Foreign Office think Miliband is a loving oval office and a copper-bottomed poo poo." Stay Classy, Tories. http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/aug/30/david-cameron-accused-miliband-siding-russia
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 17:05
|
|
|
Tatum Girlparts posted:So what should we (the international community) give him when we negotiate the chemical weapons away, how much of a profit should he turn for gassing his own people? I want to say: "Thirty pieces of silver, melted down into machine gun bullets, applied into his stomach area to form a red smily", but I'm guessing that sort of personal political solution is still a long way off, if the rebels don't get their hands on him like the Libyan rebels did with Gaddafi. Honestly, I think the best option for the Syrian people today would be a swift bombing campaign to weaken Assad until his forces collapse, followed by strong backing of the non-crazy rebels against the foreign jihadists. This second-civil-war-option would have been superfluos if we had done something earlier, but without the political will, well too bad.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 17:07
|
|
|
Cippalippus posted:"Give them up or we'll bomb you". If he doesn't give them up, you have your casus belli, if he does give them up, you solve the situation without wasting money (and possibly american lives). We told him "don't use them or we'll bomb you" a year ago, and look how well that worked. Besides, how is he going to give them up now? Syria is far too chaotic to be able to safely destroy them or send them away.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 17:08
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:We told him "don't use them or we'll bomb you" a year ago, and look how well that worked. Besides, how is he going to give them up now? Syria is far too chaotic to be able to safely destroy them or send them away. No but THIS TIME he'll listen because come on Assad is a reasonable man, you can see examples of this such as
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 17:09
|
|
|
Copley Depot posted:The US has let this war go on without getting involved so far. Why would you think Obama is at all eager for a war? Why does the United States need to get involved in the war? As much as it as been built up, the US doesn't have much of a moral ground to stand on, neither does it have a legal basis or seems to have any well thought out plan. I just don't get why people think the US is a "a force for good in the world" by default. No, the United States doesn't gas people but it has done plenty of indefensible actions over the years that maybe it is time we questioned our own moral objectivity of intervention. It doesn't mean Assad should be ignored on the international stage, but there really needs to be some introspection by a lot of the pro-intervention crowd.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 17:10
|
|
|
Who ITT has called the US a universally good force? We're saying if someone sues chemical weapons they should probably get their poo poo blown up to show that's not acceptable.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 17:12
|
|
|
Tatum Girlparts posted:
If the UN agrees to do it, then I can kind of support that idea, though I really worry about it just resulting in more death and destruction.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 17:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 16:07 |
|
|
euphronius posted:If the UN agrees to do it, then I can kind of support that idea, though I really worry about it just resulting in more death and destruction. The UN isn't going to agree to it ever because Assad could be personally executing every single person in the country and Russia would probably still veto the motion.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 17:15
|
|