|
Aurubin posted:Ok now THIS seems like Obama being weak to me. Arm them, don't arm them. It's a better reason than holding off the air strikes, truth be told, but why make such a public stink about it if you're just not going to do it in the first place? I don't see it as Obama being weak but rather being shrewd. He's disconnected his punishment by bombing from helping the rebels win. Which is an entirely valid strategy.
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2013 02:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 12:39 |
|
|
Plafop posted:Does anyone know if the bombings will be televised like the iraq war shock and awe campaign was? If so will we know sometime in advance when they will show it? It obviously will be on TV. Do you even have to ask.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2013 02:59
|
|
|
Space Monster posted:That said, I will be interested to see what Iran's response will be if we do. They have a defensive military alliance with Syria, which they claim means that an attack on Syria will result in a declaration of war from them. They've said this to their own people and on the international stage, so what will they do? Go through with it and be forced to fight the US or lose a boatload of face?
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2013 03:00
|
|
|
Vladimir Putin posted:I don't see it as Obama being weak but rather being shrewd. He's disconnected his punishment by bombing from helping the rebels win. Which is an entirely valid strategy. No I understand that from the side of the ruthless calculus of war. It is shrewd. It's also horrifying from a human rights point of view, but let's ignore that. Obama is a politician, not a general. If he was so unsure about the vetting process, why talk about arming the rebels publicly at all? Just pull a Contras and hope nobody finds out.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2013 03:00
|
|
|
Aurubin posted:No I understand that from the side of the ruthless calculus of war. It is shrewd. It's also horrifying from a human rights point of view, but let's ignore that. Obama is a politician, not a general. If he was so unsure about the vetting process, why talk about arming the rebels publicly at all? Just pull a Contras and hope nobody finds out.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2013 03:05
|
|
|
Aurubin posted:No I understand that from the side of the ruthless calculus of war. It is shrewd. It's also horrifying from a human rights point of view, but let's ignore that. Obama is a politician, not a general. If he was so unsure about the vetting process, why talk about arming the rebels publicly at all? Just pull a Contras and hope nobody finds out. He's been getting pressure from multiple sources to get involved on the side of the rebels for as long as the Syrian situation has been ongoing. I think he has to publicly make it seem like he's doing something.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2013 03:05
|
|
|
farraday posted:The report was talking solely about US police use? That's amazing considering the section I quoted starts with reference toward the Moscow theater incident. OH wait you're just being disingenuous because you used a question like a rhetorical hammer without expecting a serious response and are now dismissing any response other than what you already believed with one liners. Actually, I do regret my first response, it was a lot more cutting than it needed to be. I'm mostly angry at seeing how the rush to war is playing out like the past 10 years didn't happen.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2013 03:07
|
|
|
more friedman units posted:Actually, I do regret my first response, it was a lot more cutting than it needed to be. I'm mostly angry at seeing how the rush to war is playing out like the past 10 years didn't happen. quote:“Sen. Patrick Leahy said Sunday that Senate Democratic aides are drafting new language for an authorization of military force in Syria. …The administration’s proposal is too open-ended — a complaint many lawmakers have — Leahy (D-Vt.) said. The current version wouldn’t garner his support, but he indicated that a more tightly written draft might. … Aides to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) are overseeing the revisions, which seek to narrow the scope for any U.S. military mission in Syria … Hill aides noted the White House-originated draft did not prevent the deployment of American ground forces in Syria in order to fulfill the mission of interdicting the Assad regime use of chemical weapons. That restriction is seen by some in Congress as a key to winning support for the military effort in both the House and Senate.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2013 03:08
|
|
|
Blackbird Fly posted:Yes, but when Russia is already using not-so non-lethal CW on its citizens action on Syria won't deter Putin because Russia is on the Security Council and the US would attack Russia probably right before Jesus returns. And VX was developed by the Germans therefore it couldn't be in Syria. Treating it as if the only concerns were the places where it was developed ignores the entire concern of proliferation. Friedman units, Like Blackbird you seriously underestimate the concept of proliferation, especially considering the general happiness with which major countries sell "non-lethal" things for "anti-terrorism" and the increasing globalization of chemical development labs, the result will be that what exists and is tacitly approved will become quickly dispersed to countries everywhere. To our great discredit "non-lethal" incapacitating CW that are incredibly dangerous and easily weaponized are goign to be a fact of life, especially as tear gas has been shown repeatedly to be only marginal effective against determined protesters these last few years. And yes the article does cite concerns that the increasing allowance of police CW will normalize weapon use, but that is simply the method they're looking at there since they're talking about the increased use in police actions. It actually dovetails quite horribly with a lack of response to of military CW normalizing military use of upgraded "police" CW, the diffusion runs both ways especially in countries where the military/police barrier is similarly weak. Realistically though lacking a new convention that does limit these "police uses" the best that can be done against the oncoming proliferation threat is to make it clear that lethal military use will not be tolerated.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2013 03:17
|
|
|
farraday posted:And VX was developed by the Germans therefore it couldn't be in Syria. Treating it as if the only concerns were the places where it was developed ignores the entire concern of proliferation. farraday posted:To our great discredit "non-lethal" incapacitating CW that are incredibly dangerous and easily weaponized are goign to be a fact of life, especially as tear gas has been shown repeatedly to be only marginal effective against determined protesters these last few years. farraday posted:And yes the article does cite concerns that the increasing allowance of police CW will normalize weapon use, but that is simply the method they're looking at there since they're talking about the increased use in police actions. It actually dovetails quite horribly with a lack of response to of military CW normalizing military use of upgraded "police" CW, the diffusion runs both ways especially in countries where the military/police barrier is similarly weak. Realistically though lacking a new convention that does limit these "police uses" the best that can be done against the oncoming proliferation threat is to make it clear that lethal military use will not be tolerated. Edit: I think we're on the same page with the last two points. I still wonder how effective limiting CW usage can be if countries do not unite in condemning its usage. I guess we'll just see what effect the strikes have. Blackbird Fly fucked around with this message at 03:38 on Sep 3, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2013 03:29
|
|
|
Blackbird Fly posted:Major powers can't punish for CW with one hand and pet with the other, it sends the wrong message-"if you want to use CW, do it as a US ally". I'm honestly unsure of what you think you're arguing. They're going to be a fact of life because they're going to exist and be widespread. we can not change that just like we can't do anything about police use of tear gas despite the fact it's banned for military use. The point is to reiterate the prohibition on military use of CW because, despite the claims people are making, CW development and usage are an ongoing concern not a past issue.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2013 03:37
|
|
|
farraday posted:Friedman units, I'm completely on board with your disgust about normalizing the kind of militarized policing being talked about in the article. I guess I don't see how the U.S. attacking Syria will slow or reverse that trend since we're well-established as a hypocrite on this issue. The U.S. can't be a major proponent and developer of militarized police equipment and weaponry, look the other way when useful allies brutalize and suppress their populace, and then have any credibility in sending a global message that chemical weapons are off-limits.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2013 03:40
|
|
|
Look at you McClatchy, not spinning it like everybody else. How the hell are you still in business? http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/09/02/201027/to-some-us-case-for-syrian-gas.html#emlnl=Daily_News_Update quote:To some, US case for Syrian gas attack and need for strike has too many holes
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2013 03:45
|
|
|
more friedman units posted:I'm completely on board with your disgust about normalizing the kind of militarized policing being talked about in the article. I guess I don't see how the U.S. attacking Syria will slow or reverse that trend since we're well-established as a hypocrite on this issue. The U.S. can't be a major proponent and developer of militarized police equipment and weaponry, look the other way when useful allies brutalize and suppress their populace, and then have any credibility in sending a global message that chemical weapons are off-limits. I think it's more about having chemical weapons designed to be lethal to be considered off limits, and yeah thanks to rear end in a top hat Reagan we're hypocrites on that to but I don't think anyone here is saying that him looking the other when when Saddam used them was a good thing. It's semantics I know but really anything done to prohibit the use of CW, ones designed to be lethal or not is still something I consider a net gain and worth doing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2013 03:50
|
|
|
Yeah, he always gives himself a way out, doesn't he?quote:“We have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized,” the president said a year ago last week. “That would change my calculus. That would change my equation.” Sure you utilized weapons Assad, but did you utilize a "bunch" of 'em? That's what the question is here. Did you throw one punch, or did you throw punches in bunches?
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2013 04:04
|
|
|
A Winner is Jew posted:I think it's more about having chemical weapons designed to be lethal to be considered off limits, and yeah thanks to rear end in a top hat Reagan we're hypocrites on that to but I don't think anyone here is saying that him looking the other when when Saddam used them was a good thing. It's semantics I know but really anything done to prohibit the use of CW, ones designed to be lethal or not is still something I consider a net gain and worth doing. The way I think about this is that the U.S. history of hypocrisy is taken into account by other nations when they interpret our actions. If we attack Syria, in context that says that the U.S. won't tolerate violent suppression of a populace or the use of chemical weapons.1 1 Unless you're a useful ally or actively harming one of our geopolitical rivals, in which case we'll look the other way.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2013 04:05
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:^^^Oh yeah? POP QUIZ. Who's Manaf Tlass? Don't google. Again, I don't know the whole situation, but I was under the impression that Tlass wasn't that much of a uniting figure, and wasn't taken seriously by the rebels as a leader, despite his prominence. At least that's what I understood the situation to be last year. I haven't been able to read this thread all the way through, but is there any info that contradicts that assumption?
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2013 04:06
|
|
|
more friedman units posted:I'm completely on board with your disgust about normalizing the kind of militarized policing being talked about in the article. I guess I don't see how the U.S. attacking Syria will slow or reverse that trend since we're well-established as a hypocrite on this issue. The U.S. can't be a major proponent and developer of militarized police equipment and weaponry, look the other way when useful allies brutalize and suppress their populace, and then have any credibility in sending a global message that chemical weapons are off-limits. Actually I disagree, not only can it be but in many ways it must. The reason is because this isn't simply a US hypocrisy, it's a world wide one. The world as a whole is guilty of blurring the margins of the CW rule where police action is concerned. The tear gas dichotomy is instructive here as it shows that everyone is willing to allow use on civilians they forbid in the military. The only way to maintain a such any semblance of restriction on boundary cases is to come down hard on blatant violations else the rule will become entirely meaningless. Thank god Assad violated the law so spectacularly. Had he used tear gas it would have still been a blatant violation but there would have been even less of a reaction than we're seeing now. With that in mind the line about police CW use normalizing military use seems entirely apropos and horrifyingly accurate.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2013 04:10
|
|
|
Gygaxian posted:Again, I don't know the whole situation, but I was under the impression that Tlass wasn't that much of a uniting figure, and wasn't taken seriously by the rebels as a leader, despite his prominence. At least that's what I understood the situation to be last year. I haven't been able to read this thread all the way through, but is there any info that contradicts that assumption? He was too close to Assad as well, which really tainted the well. Still, for quite a while, there were rumors of a transition towards a government run by him if Assad would step down. Wasn't going to happen though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2013 04:10
|
|
|
more friedman units posted:The way I think about this is that the U.S. history of hypocrisy is taken into account by other nations when they interpret our actions. If we attack Syria, in context that says that the U.S. won't tolerate violent suppression of a populace or the use of chemical weapons.1 Absolutely, but then how does the US reverse that hypocrisy? Is there a time table where we can't act in support of banning CW in any of it's many forms without being thought of as hypocrites, and if so what is it?
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2013 04:11
|
|
|
Haven't the French and Germans already determined Chemical Weapons were used or uncovered transmission intercepts?
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2013 04:21
|
|
|
Xandu posted:That's a terrible reason. Well, from our perspective, yes. However, it makes total sense to a superpower. The big countries very much like the ability to bluff and threaten weaker countries into submission, and if backing it up with action every so often is occasionally necessary to maintain that power, then it's a price they're willing to pay. I never said it was a good reason, especially morally, but it's Obama's reason. The key factor here isn't so much "the use of chemical weapons" as it is "using chemical weapons that a superpower ordered them to refrain from using with an implicit threat of force". That's why enforcing the CW ban here isn't inconsistent with other uses of CW that we looked the other way on - because the crime here is using CW after being explicitly informed that the West would pretend not to tolerate the use of CW by the regime.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2013 04:22
|
|
|
more friedman units posted:Actually, I do regret my first response, it was a lot more cutting than it needed to be. I'm mostly angry at seeing how the rush to war is playing out like the past 10 years didn't happen. There's learning from the past, and there's living in the past. Vietnam and Iraq were terrible mistakes, but we can't allow ourselves to be blinded by interpreting every conflict as being mere repetitions of them. That path leads to pure isolationism, and then being blindsided when the situation deviates from that narrative.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2013 04:57
|
|
|
Kaal posted:There's learning from the past, and there's living in the past. Vietnam and Iraq were terrible mistakes, but we can't allow ourselves to be blinded by interpreting every conflict as being mere repetitions of them. That path leads to pure isolationism, and then being blindsided when the situation deviates from that narrative. This. Iraq =/= Syria. Beyond the fact they involve two countries in the same region and WMD is (one of) the reasons for war, they aren't comparable. Motives (real and stated), capabilities, the domestic political landscape, evidence, international support, and the type of military action being proposed, are all different. Intervention is a bad idea. And yes, mission creep needs to be avoided at all costs. But it isn't going to be Iraq 2.0
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2013 05:08
|
|
|
The use of chemical weapons is explicitly banned by nearly every country and every international organization since World War I.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2013 05:08
|
|
|
Space Monster posted:Disclaimer: I don't want the U.S. to get involved in Syria. Why not do away with the facade? How many other US allies/enemies in the region have been chomping at the bit over the Kurds/Israel/Al-Qaeda/Sunnis/Shiites? If anything that this thread has proven about Syria, is that it can and will expand beyond its borders. Why wouldn't a US intervention not destabilize the entire region?
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2013 05:16
|
|
|
I'm hardly informed about the intricacies of delicate foreign policy, but.. isn't that absolutely monstrous? Isn't arming the rebels and/or striking Assad, but taking every step we can to ensure that one side doesn't actually gain a substantial advantage over the other, actively promoting an unending civil war that will grind their populace into the ground? Drawing out and prolonging an incredibly bloody civil war seems like a far, far worse thing, morally, than simply doing nothing. I mean, I'm aghast. Cabbit fucked around with this message at 06:39 on Sep 3, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2013 06:34
|
|
|
Cabbit posted:I'm hardly informed about the intricacies of delicate foreign policy, but.. isn't that absolutely monstrous? Isn't arming the rebels and/or striking Assad, but taking every step we can to ensure that one side doesn't actually gain a substantial advantage over the other, actively promoting an unending civil war that will grind their populace into the ground? Drawing and actively trying to prolong an incredibly bloody civil war seems like a far, far worse thing, morally, than simply doing nothing. I'd like to introduce you to a little something called the Iran Iraq war which is basically a much bigger scale of this tactic used for 8 years.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2013 06:39
|
|
|
Syrian social media is abuzz with rumors of "the highest defection to date" occurring last night.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2013 06:43
|
|
|
MothraAttack posted:Syrian social media is abuzz with rumors of "the highest defection to date" occurring last night. Highest ranking defection or highest number of defections?
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2013 06:47
|
|
|
Ranking. One activist referred to him as "general" but rank/position appears unclear. edit: And by Syrian social media here I'm referring to THE_47th and affiliates who have been at least semi-accurate with these sorts of claims in the past. Double edit: Does someone have that link handy to a recent study breaking down the various opposition groups, including number of fighters? I feel it's particularly useful in understanding claims about al-Qaida allies, etc., but that it vanished into the sprawl of posts a while back. MothraAttack fucked around with this message at 06:56 on Sep 3, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2013 06:51
|
|
|
farraday posted:Actually I disagree, not only can it be but in many ways it must. The reason is because this isn't simply a US hypocrisy, it's a world wide one. The world as a whole is guilty of blurring the margins of the CW rule where police action is concerned. The tear gas dichotomy is instructive here as it shows that everyone is willing to allow use on civilians they forbid in the military. I think the world is generally comfortable being hypocritical about police militarization and the use of chemical agents to suppress dissent. The U.S. could attack Syria for chemical weapons use one day and invest in crowd control devices the next without any apparent discomfort at the contradiction. I guess my question is, "Why does it always have to be the U.S. going on the attack?" A Winner is Jew posted:Absolutely, but then how does the US reverse that hypocrisy? Is there a time table where we can't act in support of banning CW in any of it's many forms without being thought of as hypocrites, and if so what is it? We'd have to start living up to our rhetoric even when it's inconvenient or uncomfortable. Enforcing international laws and norms by skipping the UN Security Council seems absurd even if Russia will veto. Make them go on the record regardless. Push for humanitarian assistance to Syrian refugees or a UN peacekeeping mission, anything beyond acting unilaterally before other options have been tried. Kaal posted:There's learning from the past, and there's living in the past. Vietnam and Iraq were terrible mistakes, but we can't allow ourselves to be blinded by interpreting every conflict as being mere repetitions of them. That path leads to pure isolationism, and then being blindsided when the situation deviates from that narrative. We'll forget our mistakes once we begin dismissing the past as no longer relevant. I don't think it's isolationist to say that the U.S. doesn't have an obligation (or the ability) to get involved in every conflict in the Middle East. We've more than demonstrated that we're willing to get involved in regional conflicts. Why doesn't the Arab League move forward with a plan of their own? They've announced support for UN-backed intervention and a potential U.S. strike, haven't they?
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2013 06:58
|
|
|
more friedman units posted:We'd have to start living up to our rhetoric even when it's inconvenient or uncomfortable. Enforcing international laws and norms by skipping the UN Security Council seems absurd even if Russia will veto. Make them go on the record regardless. Push for humanitarian assistance to Syrian refugees or a UN peacekeeping mission, anything beyond acting unilaterally before other options have been tried. We tried to condemn Syria for attacking protesters, failed. We tried sanctions, failed. We tried going to the UN to authorize military force against the Syrian government, failed. I'm anti-intervention, but the UN isn't going to offer anything the ways things are right now. Also remember that Annan was the Arab League envoy to Syria when he tried that Six-Point Plan. Blackbird Fly fucked around with this message at 07:45 on Sep 3, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2013 07:39
|
|
|
more friedman units posted:We'd have to start living up to our rhetoric even when it's inconvenient or uncomfortable. Enforcing international laws and norms by skipping the UN Security Council seems absurd even if Russia will veto. Make them go on the record regardless. Push for humanitarian assistance to Syrian refugees or a UN peacekeeping mission, anything beyond acting unilaterally before other options have been tried. Fair enough and I think US undergoing a systematic elimination of all of it's lethal CW arsenal is a step in the right direction, one it's doing right now. As for the international law angle, I'd love it if Russia wouldn't be "dicks" about this whole mess but sadly that's not the way the world works. I will say that Obama sending this to congress while the rest of the world investigates this incident (and hopefully more diplomacy to form a wider coalition to back up the probable strikes) is another step in the right direction. Also, UN peacekeepers will never happen unless the following happens. 1) One of the members of the security council proposes a UN peacekeeping mission there and 2) after the Russian Veto the GA has to 377 it to override the Russian Veto. Both of those have to happen and I would bet large sums of money it won't. Then you have the problem that UN peacekeeping missions aren't even that effective when deployed to nations that are in the midst of a civil war such as Rwanda, Bosnia, Somalia, and most recently Sri Lanka when it comes to protecting civilians to say nothing about the rampant increase in the local sex trade wherever the UN is deployed. Lastly, the original intervention in Kosovo was not authorized by the UN but was instead done unilaterally by members of NATO, and it turned into probably one of the few good things that the US has done militarily in the last 60 years. Now do I think Syria is even remotely close to the situation that was going on in Kosovo? No, well apart from the massive numbers of civilians being killed, however "living up to our rhetoric" to me means making the "inconvenient or uncomfortable" decision to conduct punitive strikes against Assad and his military for using CW on civilians because there use should not be tolerated regardless of what ally the nation that used them has.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2013 07:44
|
|
|
Plafop posted:Does anyone know if the bombings will be televised like the iraq war shock and awe campaign was? If so will we know sometime in advance when they will show it? There will probably be cruddy cuts from Syrian national TV if they broadcast it but it won't be like Iraq War. Syria's an incredibly dangerous place for journalists, there are relatively few foreign reporters working there. AP has reporters in country, WSJ has one or two, ABC is re-opening their bureau in Lebanon, Le Monde had/has people in country. CNN and France 24 are the only western TV networks in Damascus http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/27/media-syria-strike-journalists-damascus_n_3825091.html
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2013 07:45
|
|
|
more friedman units posted:I think the world is generally comfortable being hypocritical about police militarization and the use of chemical agents to suppress dissent. The U.S. could attack Syria for chemical weapons use one day and invest in crowd control devices the next without any apparent discomfort at the contradiction. I guess my question is, "Why does it always have to be the U.S. going on the attack?" Do you seriously think CW and say, Sarin, are comparable? Hell, do you even think they're on the same continuum? It's not a contradiction to see non-lethal agents like tear gas as acceptable, but then say that mustard gas is unacceptable. One kills people in horrible ways, the other doesn't.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2013 07:46
|
|
|
Bacarruda posted:Do you seriously think CW and say, Sarin, are comparable? Hell, do you even think they're on the same continuum? No, but that was in response to an article arguing that the use of chemical agents for policing normalizes the use of chemical weapons.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2013 07:56
|
|
|
Has the US and everyone else sanctioned the everliving gently caress our of Syria? Have we gone after every single remain Syria asset or liquidity? Are the only other options military interventions? Excluding logistical support and non-weapon supplies?
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2013 08:06
|
|
|
Tab8715 posted:Has the US and everyone else sanctioned the everliving gently caress our of Syria? Have we gone after every single remain Syria asset or liquidity? In many cases the point of extreme sanctions is that they hurt the ordinary poorer populations, which in theory puts pressure on the offending government to change. Something tells me that the Syrian government doesn't give a poo poo if people starve or die from easily treatable diseases. What are the masses going to do if we sanction their country and they start dying (more), riot? I don't mean for this post to be snarky, so I hope it didn't come off that way.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2013 08:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 12:39 |
|
|
Pohl posted:I don't mean for this post to be snarky, so I hope it didn't come off that way.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2013 08:48
|
|