Middle East Thread of Despair: More Broken Than Syria

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Middle East Thread of Despair: More Broken Than Syria

«‹›3125 »

woke wedding drone: Jun 1, 2003; by exmarx; Fun Shoe

Xandu posted:

I've read he keeps a pretty casual office on holidays/weekends, at least compared to Bush.

Didn't Bush like to power down hot dogs and ice cream at the Resolute desk?

# ? Sep 2, 2013 23:45

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 7, 2024 00:47

Banano: Jan 10, 2005; Soiled Meat

ufarn posted:

All jokes aside, it's interesting that the president isn't wearing a tie.

And McCain hasn't been shown how to wear one properly :wotwot:

# ? Sep 2, 2013 23:48

Xandu: Feb 19, 2006; It's hard to be humble when you're as great as I am.

SedanChair posted:

Didn't Bush like to power down hot dogs and ice cream at the Resolute desk?

quote:

�I�ll never forget going to work on a Saturday morning, getting called down to the Oval Office because there was something he was mad about,� said Dan Bartlett, who was counselor to Mr. Bush. �I had on khakis and a buttoned-down shirt, and I had to stand by the door and get chewed out for about 15 minutes. He wouldn�t even let me cross the threshold.�

# ? Sep 2, 2013 23:48

Willa Rogers: Mar 11, 2005

Is there any reason that Obama and Putin can't have a chat about Syria during G20 this week? Aside from Obama's previously announced snub of Putin because of Snowden, which Obama could surely set aside before making the momentous, politically unpopular and expensive decision to bomb the hell out of Syria?

Even if Obama decides to hold onto his petulance, couldn't he do the world-leader version of "I'm not talking to him because we're having a spat, so YOU CAN TELL HIM FOR ME..."

But seriously, a summit of the nation's most powerful leaders might provide a good sounding board before the U.S. decides to pursue any reckless unilateral actions, no?

# ? Sep 2, 2013 23:52

Ambrose Burnside: Aug 30, 2007; pensive

Zeroisanumber posted:

Whether or not he personally ordered the attacks isn't really important and almost certainly wouldn't change the response from the White House, other than to move a few names up or down the "people to kill" list.

It seems plenty important to me- the ramifications of Assad losing control of his chemical arsenal are vastly different from Assad deciding to escalate, and the international responses would by necessity be completely different and incompatible with either opposing scenario (a handful of cruise missiles would do little to deter "rogue factions" with little permanent infrastructure to target, whereas that might actually conceivably in some universe work against a state apparatus). Not that I actually believe Assad's lost control of his VX or anything, but figuring out at least that much with some degree of certainty seems like a basic prerequisite to any potentially-effective action being taken.

e: Unless, you know, Obama just wants to do the bare minimum he has to and get the gently caress out, which doesn't actually require whatever he does to work as a deterrent, just that it be easily spun as such.

Ambrose Burnside fucked around with this message at 23:55 on Sep 2, 2013

# ? Sep 2, 2013 23:53

Xandu: Feb 19, 2006; It's hard to be humble when you're as great as I am.

Willa Rogers posted:

Is there any reason that Obama and Putin can't have a chat about Syria during G20 this week? Aside from Obama's previously announced snub of Putin because of Snowden, which Obama could surely set aside before making the momentous, politically unpopular and expensive decision to bomb the hell out of Syria?

Even if Obama decides to hold onto his petulance, couldn't he do the world-leader version of "I'm not talking to him because we're having a spat, so YOU CAN TELL HIM FOR ME..."

But seriously, a summit of the nation's most powerful leaders might provide a good sounding board before the U.S. decides to pursue any reckless unilateral actions, no?

What do you think would be gained by that?

# ? Sep 2, 2013 23:58

Mans: Sep 14, 2011; by Jeffrey of YOSPOS

What's the deal with the AP reporter claiming the rebels did it? Sorry if this has been talked about but this thread has been going a mile a minute.

# ? Sep 2, 2013 23:58

Xandu: Feb 19, 2006; It's hard to be humble when you're as great as I am.

He doesn't really work for the AP (he's a freelancer), it wasn't published by the AP, and he wasn't in the country doing the reporting, and the story seems to be made up.

# ? Sep 2, 2013 23:59

Vladimir Putin: Mar 17, 2007; by R. Guyovich

Xandu posted:

What do you think would be gained by that?

Yeah there's nothing to be said that hasn't already been aired.

# ? Sep 3, 2013 00:00

Vincent Van Goatse: Nov 8, 2006; Enjoy every sandwich.; Smellrose

Vladimir Putin posted:

Yeah there's nothing to be said that hasn't already been aired.

Well, you'd know.

# ? Sep 3, 2013 00:01

Nckdictator: Sep 8, 2006; Just..someone

SedanChair posted:

Didn't Bush like to power down hot dogs and ice cream at the Resolute desk?

Bush 41 was fairly casual.

quote:

"Mr. Nixon said that he permitted the men in his office to take their suit coats off, but that he never did, because he wouldn�t like the way it made him feel," I (Greene) said.

"I never did, in the Oval Office," Bush said.

"You didn�t take your suit coat off?" I said. Bush was still jacketless as we sat and talked.

"No," Bush said.

"When you were alone?" I asked.

�THAT�S what you�re talking about � Nixon wouldn�t even take his jacket off when he was alone?� Bush said.

"Yes," I said.

"Oh," Bush said, looking toward the ceiling as if trying to picture this. "I see," he said, sounding as if he found the notion quite peculiar.

He thought for a second. �I might have taken it off when I was alone in the Oval Office,� he said. �But when people were there, I put a jacket on.�

"But Mr. Nixon said that wherever he was, not just in the Oval Office, when he was alone working on a speech by himself or something, he would keep his suit jacket on," I said. "He had to have it on."

"No," Bush said, remembering his own routine in the White House. "I think I would go in there to the Oval Office on a Saturday morning when nobody was there, and I wouldn�t wear a jacket. At he house, the living quarters part of the White House, that�s different, too. I mean, I�d walk around there in a bathrobe. I mean, you know, the bedroom? You�re not going to wear a suit."

Anyways, so this doesn't become The Middle East: Presidental Suit Chat I do have a question.

With the Syrian security forces supposedly hiding in mosques and schools there's not a large chance that those locations would be bombed , right?

# ? Sep 3, 2013 00:02

Xandu: Feb 19, 2006; It's hard to be humble when you're as great as I am.

It seems unlikely (to me at least) that regular military personnel would be the primary target of any strikes.

# ? Sep 3, 2013 00:08

Vladimir Putin: Mar 17, 2007; by R. Guyovich

So it's been reported that McCain is on board with Obama on Syria. I think the traditional GOP will come on board but the isolationist teapartiers will prob vote no. No idea how democrats will vote.

# ? Sep 3, 2013 00:11

Willa Rogers: Mar 11, 2005

^^^ Sounds like a good time to make some constituent phone calls.

Xandu posted:

What do you think would be gained by that?

I dunno; maybe old-fashioned diplomacy, as Jimmy Carter suggested the other day:

quote:

The use of chemical weapons on August 21 near Damascus is a grave breach of international law that has rightfully outraged the world community. The United States and some of its European allies are calling for military strikes on Syria, but apparently without support from NATO or the Arab League. Predictably, Russia, Iran, and Syria are predicting dire consequences. At Syria's invitation, a U.N. investigation is already underway and will soon make its report. A punitive military response without a U.N. Security Council mandate or broad support from NATO and the Arab League would be illegal under international law and unlikely to alter the course of the war. It will only harden existing positions and postpone a sorely needed political process to put an end to the catastrophic violence. Instead, all should seek to leverage the consensus among the entire international community, including Russia and Iran, condemning the use of chemical weapons in Syria and bringing under U.N. oversight the country's stockpile of such weapons.

"It is imperative to determine the facts of the attack and present them to the public. Those responsible for the use of chemical weapons must bear personal responsibility," said President Carter. "The chemical attack should be a catalyst for redoubling efforts to convene a peace conference, to end hostilities, and urgently to find a political solution."

I know diplomacy's been displaced by our government's insistence on immediate unilateral bombing, but what's the harm in doing a lil peace-mongering first? If nothing else, it makes for better international optics about saving the country through bombing it.

Willa Rogers fucked around with this message at 00:14 on Sep 3, 2013

# ? Sep 3, 2013 00:12

Xandu: Feb 19, 2006; It's hard to be humble when you're as great as I am.

I can't see any reason for Assad to negotiate given his current position and Russia almost assuredly can't force him to. If he wanted to leave and retire peacefully with a bunch of money, he had plenty of chances to do so.

There's yet to be a successful ceasefire up to now, and the opposition isn't unified enough to make demands.

edit: A little peacemongering first? Geneva's been talked about for over a year at this point.

Secondly, look at Lebanon's sectarian strife post-Taif to see the problems inherent in a lot of the discussed peace settlements.

# ? Sep 3, 2013 00:14

Willa Rogers: Mar 11, 2005

Xandu posted:

I can't see any reason for Assad to negotiate given his current position and Russia almost assuredly can't force him to. If he wanted to leave and retire peacefully with a bunch of money, he had plenty of chances to do so.

There's yet to be a successful ceasefire up to now, and the opposition isn't unified enough to make demands.

That doesn't really answer the question of what's the harm in a little confabbing, given the meeting this week and all. Congress isn't even getting back to D.C. for another week so it's not like anything's getting held up time-wise.

It's really bizarre to see summary dismissals of Carter, of all people, for the crazy concept of peace talks before we start unilaterally bombing a country in the Mid-East.

# ? Sep 3, 2013 00:18

Xandu: Feb 19, 2006; It's hard to be humble when you're as great as I am.

There's no harm, it just doesn't accomplish anything. Ignoring years of envoys and conferences and attempts at peace to act as though military action came out of nowhere isn't really accurate.

# ? Sep 3, 2013 00:19

Young Freud: Nov 26, 2006

Nckdictator posted:

With the Syrian security forces supposedly hiding in mosques and schools there's not a large chance that those locations would be bombed , right?

Right, but they have to leave sanctuary eventually in order to conduct a war. Holing up in a mosque is probably a great way to get surrounded.

And, what Xandu said. They can't bring along their heavy weaponry, aircraft, equipment and infrastructure with them. That's pretty much the only thing giving them parity with the rebels. If that's been getting them into a stalemate with the insurgency and now they're separated from it, you can guess how that will turn out.

# ? Sep 3, 2013 00:21

Willa Rogers: Mar 11, 2005

Xandu posted:

There's no harm, it just doesn't accomplish anything. Ignoring years of envoys and conferences and attempts at peace to act as though military action came out of nowhere isn't really accurate.

I'm so old that I remember when we'd actually try to solve this sort of stuff face to face before bombing a country, and this week's timing with G20 would be auspicious for that.

But if the decision's been made already that we're going to bomb the country then you're correct: a peace summit would be of no value.

vvv So what's one more sitdown, then?

# ? Sep 3, 2013 00:22

Vincent Van Goatse: Nov 8, 2006; Enjoy every sandwich.; Smellrose

Willa Rogers posted:

I know diplomacy's been displaced by our government's insistence on immediate unilateral bombing, but what's the harm in doing a lil peace-mongering first? If nothing else, it makes for better international optics about saving the country through bombing it.

Have you even been paying attention to Syria before this week? Obama's been desperately trying to avoid doing what you're accusing him of being gung ho for since day one.

# ? Sep 3, 2013 00:23

Xandu: Feb 19, 2006; It's hard to be humble when you're as great as I am.

So do Lakhdar Brahimi and Kofi Annan not count?

edit: This isn't new, Russia and China and the Arab World, supported by the UN and the West have been active players in peace attempts that went nowhere. Maybe we should keep trying for a while longer, but this isn't just a sudden decision.

# ? Sep 3, 2013 00:23

Aurubin: Mar 17, 2011

Since Syria is broke and Russia isn't selling them guns, isn't it simply a grind to the bottom now? It's not like Tehran isn't equally bankrupt, especially compared to the Gulf states. I really wonder if Iran thinks it can win.

# ? Sep 3, 2013 00:24

cafel: Mar 29, 2010; This post is hurting the economy!

Willa Rogers posted:

That doesn't really answer the question of what's the harm in a little confabbing, given the meeting this week and all. Congress isn't even getting back to D.C. for another week so it's not like anything's getting held up time-wise.

It's really bizarre to see summary dismissals of Carter, of all people, for the crazy concept of peace talks before we start unilaterally bombing a country in the Mid-East.

Because Obama would be confabbing with someone who doesn't have control of either side of the conflict, just as Obama doesn't have any control of either side of the conflict?

And before you even approach trying to get both sides to agree to peace you'd have to figure out who should even be representing the rebels.

Basically see every previous attempt to negotiate peace, or even a temporary cease-fire, for why suggesting peace talks is just facetious.

# ? Sep 3, 2013 00:25

The Newman: Oct 17, 2003; unconstructive critic

Vincent Van Goatse posted:

Have you even been paying attention to Syria before this week? Obama's been desperately trying to avoid doing what you're accusing him of being gung ho for since day one.

Golly, if only there were a way for the commander in chief not to bomb something. Hard to stop yourself, just accidentally slip and fall on the launch button.

# ? Sep 3, 2013 00:29

Willa Rogers: Mar 11, 2005

cafel posted:

Because Obama would be confabbing with someone who doesn't have control of either side of the conflict, just as Obama doesn't have any control of either side of the conflict?

And before you even approach trying to get both sides to agree to peace you'd have to figure out who should even be representing the rebels.

Basically see every previous attempt to negotiate peace, or even a temporary cease-fire, for why suggesting peace talks is just facetious.

I totally accept the fact that I'm pretty ignorant on the topic, which is why I relied on Nobel Peace Prize winner Jimmy Carter as my source. I guess he's dumb and doesn't know poo poo about the diplomacy business either.

# ? Sep 3, 2013 00:31

Xandu: Feb 19, 2006; It's hard to be humble when you're as great as I am.

Well you could just as easily rely on Nobel Peace Prize winner Barack Obama

Kofi Annan posted:

I accepted this task, which some called �Mission Impossible� - for I believed it was a sacred duty to do whatever was in my power to help the Syrian people find a peaceful solution to this bloody conflict.

The severity of the humanitarian costs of the conflict, and the exceptional threats posed by this crisis to international peace and security, justified the attempts to secure a peaceful transition to a political settlement, however daunting the challenge.

The increasing militarization on the ground and the clear lack of unity in the Security Council, have fundamentally changed the circumstances for the effective exercise of my role.

Yet the bloodshed continues, most of all because of the Syrian government�s intransigence, and continuing refusal to implement the six-point plan, and also because of the escalating military campaign of the opposition - all of which is compounded by the disunity of the international community.

At a time when we need � when the Syrian people desperately need action - there continues to be finger-pointing and name-calling in the Security Council.

The Geneva Communiqu�, endorsed by the Action Group for Syria on 30 June, provided an international agreement on a framework for a political transition. This should have been automatically endorsed by the Security Council and something the international community should have built on.

Without serious, purposeful and united international pressure, including from the powers of the region, it is impossible for me, or anyone, to compel the Syrian government in the first place, and also the opposition, to take the steps necessary to begin a political process.

Not much has changed in a year.

Xandu fucked around with this message at 00:36 on Sep 3, 2013

# ? Sep 3, 2013 00:31

Doloen: Dec 18, 2004

Nobody fighting on the ground is intrested in peace, so at most it would be the US and Russia Having talks about not supplying Assad/not bombing Assad, and then looking the other way while a dude literally gasses people. "Peace".

# ? Sep 3, 2013 00:32

Nonsense: Jan 26, 2007

YodaTFK posted:

and then looking the other way while a dude literally gasses people. "Peace".

I honestly believe this will immediately occur once the bombing is done anyway.

edit: Anybody have a rough idea of the kinds of things to be destroyed? Some report on AJE mentioned pro-regime protesters camping around potential infrastructure targets, like electricity. Could be lies too, though.

Nonsense fucked around with this message at 00:38 on Sep 3, 2013

# ? Sep 3, 2013 00:35

Doloen: Dec 18, 2004

Nonsense posted:

I honestly believe this will immediately occur once the bombing is done anyway.

Probably!

# ? Sep 3, 2013 00:40

Ambrose Burnside: Aug 30, 2007; pensive

Xandu posted:

There's no harm, it just doesn't accomplish anything.

...which probably makes it a net plus over a cruise missile strike at this point in time.

# ? Sep 3, 2013 00:44

Redgrendel2001: Sep 1, 2006; you literally think a person saying their NBA team of choice being better than the fucking 76ers is a 'schtick'

a literal thing you think.

Aurubin posted:

The White House looks really tacky. I hate antebellum/Victorian decor. As for non-furniture related "news":

http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Sources-Internal-dissent-in-Iran-rising-over-the-growing-Syria-turmoil-325118

I say "news" because it's the Jerusalem Post. At the same time, Iranians still remember Iran-Iraq. At the same time, desperation. So, propaganda or not?

Israeli propaganda? No. It has very little to do with memories of Saddam and his chemical attacks. Rasfanjani is a somewhat moderate voice of opposition and has his fingers all over anything financial in Iran so it's not surprising he would be a voice of dissent if he thought $$$ was being wasted and he could take political advantage of it. With the crappy Iranian financial situation over the past few years there's been a lot of public resentment directed at the $$$ received by Hezbollah and Syria.

# ? Sep 3, 2013 00:46

Evil Fluffy: Jul 13, 2009; Scholars are some of the most pompous and pedantic people I've ever had the joy of meeting.

shovelbum posted:

We need to launch a few missiles first so Obama can save face, then resume implementing this solution.

If the president doesn't kill some people to score political points that'd be terrible.

whatis posted:

Something I don't know if I've seen discussed yet:

I've seen some threats of Syrian (regime) retaliation against the U.S. and other western countries should they decided to intervene. Let's say the U.S. starts lobbing a few cruise missiles at strategic targets and Assad gets pissed: are Assad or his military actually capable of striking back against western forces in the Mediterranean (or anywhere else) in any appreciable fashion? Do they have the means to damage or destroy any naval ships, or carry out successful attacks against western bases in the surrounding regions?

What are the odds Assad's "response" is enough to escalate a potential conflict beyond half-hearted airstrikes and into "shock and awe" territory?

If a country or non-government group like AQ really wanted to hit the US and wasn't on a timeline there is nothing that will stop them from sneaking something in to the US if they can't get what they need here (Oklahoma City, both WTC attacks...etc). After that point it'd be a matter of moving and not getting yourself caught before you act. The downside is that if/when something like that happens the response won't be "well we brought this on ourselves, and it is impossible to have total safety" it'll be "oh gently caress we need Patriot Act 2: Patriot Harder we can't let the terrorists win no you can't have privacy gently caress you you must be a terrorist :911:

"

At this point the best thing would be if the GOP actually votes against any strike, which they might because gently caress Obama, since then Obama can just cry about how he really wanted to act but couldn't, and we don't get drawn (further) in to another lovely conflict that nobody wants us involved in. Yes the fighting sucks, but it's not our fight. Every time someone dies the US doesn't need to do a flyby and bomb poo poo. If we did then places like Chicago would be nothing but rubble and ash.

# ? Sep 3, 2013 00:48

Dolash: Oct 23, 2008; aNYWAY,
tHAT'S REALLY ALL THERE IS,
tO REPORT ON THE SUBJECT,
oF ME GETTING HURT,

Evil Fluffy posted:

If the president doesn't kill some people to score political points that'd be terrible.

If someone, somewhere doesn't reinforce the prohibition against chemical weapons such that the international community at large backslides into using them again, that'd be much more terrible than mere cynical framing of the situation.

# ? Sep 3, 2013 00:52

Ambrose Burnside: Aug 30, 2007; pensive

Dolash posted:

If someone, somewhere doesn't reinforce the prohibition against chemical weapons such that the international community at large backslides into using them again, that'd be much more terrible than mere cynical framing of the situation.

This would make sense if chemical weapon use hasn't been continuously tolerated on the sly if it's being done by one of America's friends.

# ? Sep 3, 2013 00:54

Tezzor: Jul 29, 2013; Can't post for 3 years!

Can we get people to stop claiming that Obama has done everything he possibly can to stop a war? It's a valueless nationalistic statement, pure propaganda invoked in every single war, and happens to be totally inaccurate in this case.

# ? Sep 3, 2013 00:56

Dolash: Oct 23, 2008; aNYWAY,
tHAT'S REALLY ALL THERE IS,
tO REPORT ON THE SUBJECT,
oF ME GETTING HURT,

Ambrose Burnside posted:

This would make sense if chemical weapon use hasn't been continuously tolerated on the sly if it's being done by one of America's friends.

If you're referring specifically to White Phosphorous being used by Israel, I agree that that's also terrible and should've been met with international condemnation and action of some sort. That it wasn't, however, shouldn't mean that now all bets are off. Any enforcement the ban on chemical weapons gets is good - certainly if it's a case as blatant as a sarin gas attack.

# ? Sep 3, 2013 00:59

iCe-CuBe.: Jun 9, 2011

Dolash posted:

If someone, somewhere doesn't reinforce the prohibition against chemical weapons such that the international community at large backslides into using them again, that'd be much more terrible than mere cynical framing of the situation.

Yeah, that's totally going to happen and isn't a steaming pile of bullshit. You do get that virtually no one has chemical weapons, right, and the US not bombing a country when they use chemical weapons isn't going to make every dictator perk their heads up and say "Hey, time to spend a shitload of money on weapons that aren't even that useful" - just like that didn't happen when Saddam used chemical weapons.

# ? Sep 3, 2013 00:59

The Newman: Oct 17, 2003; unconstructive critic

Tezzor posted:

Can we get people to stop claiming that Obama has done everything he possibly can to stop a war? It's a valueless nationalistic statement, pure propaganda invoked in every single war, and happens to be totally inaccurate in this case.

Not even nationalistic, it's actually the even-worse party-line apologism.

# ? Sep 3, 2013 01:00

The Newman: Oct 17, 2003; unconstructive critic

Dolash posted:

If you're referring specifically to White Phosphorous being used by Israel, I agree that that's also terrible and should've been met with international condemnation and action of some sort. That it wasn't, however, shouldn't mean that now all bets are off. Any enforcement the ban on chemical weapons gets is good - certainly if it's a case as blatant as a sarin gas attack.

Hey, remember when Saddam used chem weapons in the Iran Iraq war?

# ? Sep 3, 2013 01:01

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 7, 2024 00:47

Young Freud: Nov 26, 2006

Aurubin posted:

Since Syria is broke and Russia isn't selling them guns, isn't it simply a grind to the bottom now? It's not like Tehran isn't equally bankrupt, especially compared to the Gulf states. I really wonder if Iran thinks it can win.

Sanctions have loving ruined Iran. There's been protests against the theocracy's support of Syria because it's been taking money out of Iran to help float Assad through the civil war. The outside-looking-in thought is that Rouhani was a bandage to help assuage the growing discontent with Iran's economy, since he's kinda a reformer and not a Basij thug like Ahmadinejhad.

Edit: loving beaten, since someone is talking about the recent Jerusalem Post article on this.

In addition, but there the reports of Assad launching chemical attacks have disturbed some of Iran's more hardliners and even military leadership. Remember, a lot of those guys were just frontline grunts during the Iran-Iraq war and they wouldn't use chemical weapons on their worst enemy because of what they've experienced there.

# ? Sep 3, 2013 01:02

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Middle East Thread of Despair: More Broken Than Syria

«‹›3125 »