Not ok really, you screwed up with the whole WMDs in Iraq, helped kick off a civil war there, quite what has been achieved in Afghanistan of lasting note is anyone's guess and now it's off to Syria is it?
Why did the Brits pull out? Because the evidence pointing the finger at Assad is crap, Obama wants to go in and help his terrorist Saudi friends and is looking for an excuse.
You can think what you like about that, there's more to this than your side of events.
I'll add that supporting the side who has the support of Al Qaeda (remember those guys) and the Muslim Brotherhood (who've been busy destroying as many churches, convents and christian schools in Egypt they can) is not what I'd call the best thing to do.
cadbren wrote: That's nice and I don't believe that. Too many lies from your government to make them a credible source of information.
It's not always lies; sometimes it was just incompetence.
Friendly fire and collateral damage are examples of incompetence. Sending people out to kill (and die) based on insufficient evidence and claiming your sources to be impeccable to the public is lying.
That's nice and I don't believe that. Too many lies from your government to make them a credible source of information.
Considering you live in a country where the government is willing to break it's own laws when the US says to, that doesn't mean much. How's Kim Dotcom these days?
On the flip side, what if they told the truth, and by inaction, thousands more were killed that might not have been? I know Uncle Joe had no problem brushing off the deaths of few thousand (a day) but what does that say about everyone when we're saying that we're perfectly OK with the deaths of thousands of people so long as it doesn't bother us any (because THERE'S a philosophy that won't come back and bite someone on the ass eventually).
The SNI I know is that Seneca Nation of Indians, but I don't recall them being in the Treaty of Versailles.
No, we were not. Which was the point. England, instead of including it's allies in the treaty or insisting on any provisions for them, pretty much left everyone to swing.
The SNI was subject to the US Federal Government taxes at the time, and continues to be so. As such the idea that England refused to include you only indicates that you believe the SNI to be more important than it is.
Considering you live in a country where the government is willing to break it's own laws when the US says to, that doesn't mean much. How's Kim Dotcom these days?
Another black mark against the US government and ours for playing lackey too. Dotcom is still living large in his mansion and was involved in the campaign against extra government surveillance.
If the Syria situation requires international intervention then the way forward would be to stabilise the government by supporting Assad and defeating the terrorist backed rebels. Then deal with the Ba'athists. Given that Robert Mugabe is still in power in Zimbabwe, I wouldn't hold my breath on the UN or anyone else doing what's best for the average person. A lot of inconsistency to put it mildly.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ouze wrote: So Cadbren, you're in the "maybe" column for Syria, then? Pencil you in?
You guys really need to work on solutions that don't require lead.
Warpig1815 wrote: @Seaward - I'm amazed that you actually consider us 'weenies'.
Who's us? Are you a British politician?
Unfortunately for you, it means that now you've lost your vanguard troops. Now I'm not saying US troops aren't capable - far from it. But taking the 1st Gulf, 2nd Gulf and Afghanistan as examples, in all three conflicts, it was the British Army who was at the forefront with US troops spearheading the assault.
Uh, no. You're thinking of Delta and SF ODAs. We absolutely do not lack for "vanguard" units. Hell, with MARSOC becoming a real thing, we've got even more now.
In the 1st Gulf War, you'll remember that it was 22nd SAS, B Squadron's Bravo Two Zero that were the first boots on the ground in Iraq, swiftly followed by the 1 (UK) Armoured Division.
Also no. And Bravo Two Zero is never a good example of the SAS' awesomeness.
Next up, in Iraq (2nd Gulf), 1st Armoured was right there alongside the lead elements of the US troops crossing the border, and if I remember rightly Basra, being the objective of the 1st Armoured Divsion, was the scene of the heaviest fighting of the campaign - and the British Army still took it before the US Army took Baghdad. Finally, again in Afghanistan, the SAS was again working right alongside US Special Forces. Yet you still think that we're just 'weenies' that have little impact?
It's pretty insulting really that the US has such a low opinion of the UK forces because the we in the UK tend on the whole to have a high regard of the US military. It's insulting even more so that the US seems only to view the British Army as a simple vanguard to clear out the hard bits they don't want to deal with. For a small nation, I'd wager our military still packs a punch, but there again, we ought to considering our experience of over 1000 years of warfare.
Every British soldier, sailor, and airman I've met has been a stand-up guy. Same goes for the Aussies, the Poles, and the Norwegians. The civilians (and especially civilian political leadership) behind them, however? Not so much. Might've been them I was referring to as weenies.
Frazzled wrote: I have to repsect the British system. The PM actually called a vote and the Parliament actually voted.
In the US - the land of Freedom HURR!-no call to vote.
in the US the Congress doesn't unilaterally meet to discuss the issue.
So, to sum up, you're saying Britain is better than America, and you wish you had been born an Englishman?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ketara wrote: Interesting developments over here that further support the theory given earlier.
Apparently a number of Government Ministers voted AGAINST action in Syria. And another two senior Ministers simply didn't show up to vote despite being in the building at the time. They claim they didn't hear the bell, but it seems extremely coincidental that nobody noticed them missing, their meeting ran the same length of time as the vote, and the House of Commons staff insist all the systems are working perfectly.
Some of the other Conservative MP's who were absent have given some scarcely believable reasons as well.
Now six or seven ministerial votes might not sound like much total, but when the motion was only lost by thirteen votes? And when this was supposedly on something so important? And those six or seven votes make up roughly a third of the Cabinet? I smell a rat.
It's also interesting to note Cameron is now basically saying to Washington that his hands are tied because the Commons took a vote. Yet curiously enough, the motion for discussing it later on was also shot down by Conservative MP's, meaning it won't come up again unless there's a massive change of circumstance.
BBC wrote:David Cameron and US President Barack Obama have discussed Parliament's block on UK involvement in possible military action in Syria, the BBC understands.
The men spoke by phone for 15 minutes, and the tone of the conversation was said to be friendly.
The prime minister reiterated he still wanted to see a strong response to the suspected chemical weapons attack.
But he also explained the parliamentary process to the US president, who said he understood the PM's predicament.
Well played Mr Cameron, methinks.
Not this again!
Two of the ministers missed the vote because they were sitting in a sound-proofed room. One of those said ministers drove back from France to be there, so it hardly sounds like a masterplan to miss the vote. Obviously, you disagree, but as far as I'm concerned, Cameron was humiliated.
Warpig1815 wrote: @Seaward - I'm amazed that you actually consider us 'weenies'.
Who's us? Are you a British politician?
Unfortunately for you, it means that now you've lost your vanguard troops. Now I'm not saying US troops aren't capable - far from it. But taking the 1st Gulf, 2nd Gulf and Afghanistan as examples, in all three conflicts, it was the British Army who was at the forefront with US troops spearheading the assault.
Uh, no. You're thinking of Delta and SF ODAs. We absolutely do not lack for "vanguard" units. Hell, with MARSOC becoming a real thing, we've got even more now.
In the 1st Gulf War, you'll remember that it was 22nd SAS, B Squadron's Bravo Two Zero that were the first boots on the ground in Iraq, swiftly followed by the 1 (UK) Armoured Division.
Also no. And Bravo Two Zero is never a good example of the SAS' awesomeness.
Next up, in Iraq (2nd Gulf), 1st Armoured was right there alongside the lead elements of the US troops crossing the border, and if I remember rightly Basra, being the objective of the 1st Armoured Divsion, was the scene of the heaviest fighting of the campaign - and the British Army still took it before the US Army took Baghdad. Finally, again in Afghanistan, the SAS was again working right alongside US Special Forces. Yet you still think that we're just 'weenies' that have little impact?
It's pretty insulting really that the US has such a low opinion of the UK forces because the we in the UK tend on the whole to have a high regard of the US military. It's insulting even more so that the US seems only to view the British Army as a simple vanguard to clear out the hard bits they don't want to deal with. For a small nation, I'd wager our military still packs a punch, but there again, we ought to considering our experience of over 1000 years of warfare.
Every British soldier, sailor, and airman I've met has been a stand-up guy. Same goes for the Aussies, the Poles, and the Norwegians. The civilians (and especially civilian political leadership) behind them, however? Not so much. Might've been them I was referring to as weenies.
Well, you won't have to worry about British involvement this time. We will fight to the last American marine in pursuit of our foreign policy goals!
Automatically Appended Next Post: For Obama, this has been a blunder on the scale of Jimmy Carter. If he had let the British use the same intelligence, the vote might have swung the other way. Instead, he lost a key international ally, and has allowed himself to be out-manoeuvred at home, with congress demanding a vote as well.
From a military point of view, we're looking at a short, scale attack, that will probably achieve feth all! What a shambles. God knows what candidate Obama must think!
@Seaward - No, I'm not a British Politician, but considering your initial post was:
Seaward wrote:So I'm sure that means we can enjoy a nice, peaceful Syrian intervention without these weenies telling us what to do, right? There won't be any bs, "Do as I say, not as I do," out of Britain.
I'm assuming that the lack of specification was just a generalised rant against Britain in general. Hence, as a British citizen, then yeah I was gonna say something. However, if it was just a go at the politicians, then be my guest and have some apologies from me as a side-order.
But I have to say, that in all 3 of my stated examples, if you think that the British Army rolled in days after the US then you would be wrong. In the Iraq War, the first combat troops into Iraq were first the special forces as you say (US, UK and other European Nations), followed up by the Invasion proper. From what I can see, the first attacks were against the Al-Faw Peninsula, with the Royal Navy, Royal Australian Navy and Polish Navy leading amphibious assaults there. Further down the line, at Umm Quasr, the Royal Marines 3 Commando Brigade and the USMC 15th MEU supported each other in a combined assault. Finally, the 16 Air Assault Brigade was deployed to take the southern oilfields of Iraq.
TL;DR - How was it not the British Army who was with the US Army/Marine Corps at the spearhead (You'll note my original statement didn't say we were first in, but it said that we were first in alongside the US.)
Of course, you are right that Bravo Two Zero isn't a portrayal of how awesome the SAS is, (Although, to be fair to them, it wasn't them who screwed up, it was just that their radio didn't work, so they didn't know to pull out when the Op was scrubbed), but it wasn't intended that way - in fact I was just saying that they were the first in.
But, if there is one thing I do agree with you about, it's that the politicians behind the British Army seem to have absolutely no clue how to effectively orchestrate a ground war. They're fine at starting wars, but once that's done (Most probably against the advice of the British Army) they're reluctant to provide the resources to continue said conflict.
This is were its starts to get wrong. ''Instances within that broader category''? So we could start comparing a single murder with such things?
Because people have a tendency to lump every atrocity the Germans committed against civilians under that broad umbrella. Particularly when the same perpetrators are involved such as SS-Sturmbrigade Dirlewanger. Point of fact, not all of their inhumanity had any relationship to a broader 'plan', they were just sent in whenever the command felt they needed to send a message and let Dirlewanger make it up as his men went. He was, after all, a man sent to the concentration camps for raping children, only to be released, given a brigade made up of men guilty of murder and worse, and turned loose on Eastern Europe, specializing in pacification via slaughtering every living human being in the area. This really does not fall under the holocaust proper, as they made no real distinction victims, they raped and killed everyone they found, committing crimes that even horrified their fellow SS. Estimates run between 30k and 120k civilians were tortured and killed before he was charged with suppressing Warsaw, where they achieved 40,000 killed in just two days, including the incident at Wola Hospital.
While Syria has not yet becomes this bad, the same inhumanity is at work. I have little doubt that if they had released such weapons to a man like Dirlewanger, he'd have used gas as well. Give the men who ordered the civilians in Syria gassed three years and means to do it, and you'll see them piled up a pyramid of skulls to rival anything Dirlewanger managed.
Nobody lumps anything other than the Holocaust under that umbrella. Most people dont even know exactly what they did besides the Holocaust. You cant even compare Syria to Wehrmacht or Waffen-SS crimes, which are still on a whole different level and well into the millions. The Dirlewanger unit is different from the Holocaust, that is a fact. But its still not on any scale Syria is approaching. Comparing only a single units warcrimes with Syria is still wrong, because it was only one of the dozens in WWII with such a record. This is just devaluating the sacrifice and victims of the single most horrible event in human history. There are far more comparable wars and crimes Syria can be compared with, where we dont have a ''tendency to lump'', so why not just stick to those?
Russian President Vladimir Putin has dismissed US claims that Syria's regime used chemical weapons, describing them as "utter nonsense".
Mr Putin challenged Washington to present the evidence behind its claims to the United Nations Security Council.
US President Barack Obama has said he is considering military action against Syria based on intelligence reports.
The Russia leader's remarks came after UN chemical weapons inspectors ended their visit to Syria.
They crossed into neighbouring Lebanon after four days of inspections, including investigations of what happened in the Damascus suburbs on 21 August.
Hundreds of people including children were killed in the suspected chemical weapons attacks, which the US says was carried out by the Syrian government.
Syria said the US claim was "full of lies", blaming rebels for the attacks.
'Trump card'
The inspectors' departure from Syria removes both a practical and a political obstacle to the launch of US-led military action, says the BBC's Kevin Connolly in Lebanon.
But speaking to journalists in the Russian far-eastern city of Vladivostok, Mr Putin urged Mr Obama - as a Nobel Peace Prize laureate - to think about future victims in Syria before using force.
He said it was ridiculous to suggest the Syrian government was to blame for the 21 August attack.
"Syrian government troops are on the offensive and have surrounded the opposition in several regions," he said.
In these conditions, to give a trump card to those who are calling for a military intervention is utter nonsense."
Russia - a key ally of Syria - has previously warned that "any unilateral military action bypassing the UN Security Council" would be a "direct violation of international law".
Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has said his country will defend itself against any Western "aggression".
The SNI was subject to the US Federal Government taxes at the time, and continues to be so. As such the idea that England refused to include you only indicates that you believe the SNI to be more important than it is.
I meant the Treaty of Ghent. My apologies. Versailles was WW1, Ghent was the War of 1812. As far as taxes go, dogma, actually no, natives (in general) were not required to pay income tax before 1924, because the US didn't offer them citizenship before that, without either first abandoning their native affiliations or joining the US military. In 1924 we were permitted to have duel citizenship.
The Dirlewanger unit is different from the Holocaust, that is a fact. But its still not on any scale Syria is approaching. Comparing only a single units warcrimes with Syria is still wrong, because it was only one of the dozens in WWII with such a record.
Scale, yes. Overall it's smaller. However, it's one incident. Other than things like the Warsaw uprising, the average incidents of Dirlewanger were all on the same order (a few hundred to a thousand civilians killed). They just did it more frequently. If we look at the over all numbers (Syria is clocking in at, supposedly, around 100,000 killed) it's starting to get close and within a much shorter time span. Now, granted, this is only for a single unit, but...
Also: I'd say that not comparing the two cheapens the deaths of the people currently dying.
Vladamir avoiding the obvious:
"Syrian government troops are on the offensive and have surrounded the opposition in several regions,"
And have been stalled for weeks without any noticeable gain.
As far as taxes go, dogma, actually no, natives (in general) were not required to pay income tax before 1924, because the US didn't offer them citizenship before that, without either first abandoning their native affiliations or joining the US military. In 1924 we were permitted to have duel citizenship.
Since when has the US federal government required a person to be citizen in order to pay a tax?
Cowboy President got more countries (and congressional approval to boot) for Iraq and Afganistan... and yet,
Mr. Nobel Peace President is having a hard time garning support.
Gee, I wonder if maybe it could have something to do with the fact that "Cowboy President" and his reasons for a war in Iraq were completely unjustifiable after the fact?
Since when has the US federal government required a person to be citizen in order to pay a tax?
Note, we're not just talking about income tax.
I'd have to ask you to clarify then what tax you're talking about, then. IIRC there are several outstanding agreements between the US and SNI regarding not charging tariffs and taxation of SNI citizens (a subject I might add of rage and debate as New York feels it's 'unfair')
The Dirlewanger unit is different from the Holocaust, that is a fact. But its still not on any scale Syria is approaching. Comparing only a single units warcrimes with Syria is still wrong, because it was only one of the dozens in WWII with such a record.
Scale, yes. Overall it's smaller. However, it's one incident. Other than things like the Warsaw uprising, the average incidents of Dirlewanger were all on the same order (a few hundred to a thousand civilians killed). They just did it more frequently. If we look at the over all numbers (Syria is clocking in at, supposedly, around 100,000 killed) it's starting to get close and within a much shorter time span. Now, granted, this is only for a single unit, but...
Also: I'd say that not comparing the two cheapens the deaths of the people currently dying.
I'm on the opposite side of that statement. But this is more a difference on a personal level, so views differ a lot.
"Syrian government troops are on the offensive and have surrounded the opposition in several regions,"
And have been stalled for weeks without any noticeable gain.
I think Putin is as happy as a little girl on christmas morning. First he gets Snowden into Russia and out of the hands of the US. Now he gets icing on the cake by blocking any relevant responses the US and the EU try to put on the table. I wonder if he even still cares about Syria and is just doing all this to annoy the US. Higher tech Russian gear like those surface to air batteries dont seem to be arriving anymore.
Cowboy President got more countries (and congressional approval to boot) for Iraq and Afganistan... and yet,
Mr. Nobel Peace President is having a hard time garning support.
Gee, I wonder if maybe it could have something to do with the fact that "Cowboy President" and his reasons for a war in Iraq were completely unjustifiable after the fact?
Ah... but you see... you got a very charismatic, multiracial, multicultural president... who would reclaim our world's "Prestige" after loathsome monsters of Bush & Co... Who would bring peace to the world and stop the rising oceans and Global Warming(TM). And now here he is, on the verge of starting yet another war without our staunchest allies...
This is very apt:
I'm already on record that we need to do something... This is a nice summary:
It is important to note that despite the moral depravity of the regime’s use of chemical weapons, none of America’s vital interests is impacted by their use within Syria. Obama’s pledge last year to view the use of chemical weapons as a tripwire that would automatically cause the US to intervene militarily in the war in Syria was made without relation to any specific US interest.
But once Obama made his pledge, other US interests became inextricably linked to US retaliation for such a strike. The interests now on the line are America’s deterrent power and strategic credibility. If Obama responds in a credible way to Syria’s use of chemical weapons, those interests will be advanced. If he does not, US deterrent power will become a laughing stock and US credibility will be destroyed.
I’m just waiting for the people who shrieked for 10 years about the invasion of Iraq to tell me why this time it’s "different".
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Warpig1815 wrote: Well it can't fix the fact that I'm still glued to the screen.
whembly wrote:Right there with ya brother! I aim to please.
Well I'm gonna have to move soon - I'm knockered... Sorry knackered.
Dare I say then, why should the use of chemical weapons trigger an auto US response, but not the use of landmines or other such collateral weapons? I'd like to point out though, this is just a curiosity of mine, I'm still on the fence about whether or not the West should intervene (I say the west, because although the UK is out currently, I'm lead to believe that a 2nd vote could take place after the UN inspectors have delivered a report in full).
Well Obama is going to wait untill the congress has voted on the issue. With him at the g8 summit that probably means action will not happen this week. Anyone expect him to win the vote or lose? Im leaning a bit towards losing Cameron style.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Well Obama is going to wait untill the congress has voted on the issue. With him at the g8 summit that probably means action will not happen this week. Anyone expect him to win the vote or lose? Im leaning a bit towards losing Cameron style.
It's hard to tell which way this Congress will jump. A lot of the people most likely to play partisan politics are also owned lock, stock, and barrel by the defense industry. His own party has been building an image of social justice and fairness for all, and that goes right out the window if they sit back and let atrocities happen, particularly since they've been fighting a public perception of them as ineffectual and spineless. Polls suggest that the US public wants something done to end the war in Syria, but doesn't want to send troops to end it. All of the two faced weasels are sensitive to the loss of face internationally by the US if nothing is done, if only because it tarnishes the office they all want to be the next one to move into but also worry if this effects their own chances of re-election.
Sadly, morality and human lives (both military and civilian) are way down their list of priorities.
whembly wrote: Ah... but you see... you got a very charismatic, multiracial, multicultural president... who would reclaim our world's "Prestige" after loathsome monsters of Bush & Co... Who would bring peace to the world and stop the rising oceans and Global Warming(TM). And now here he is, on the verge of starting yet another war without our staunchest allies...
(snip)
I'm already on record that we need to do something...
(snip)
I’m just waiting for the people who shrieked for 10 years about the invasion of Iraq to tell me why this time it’s "different".
And, as much as I'd like to give you a pass after that riveting gif (which I have saved for further research in my bunk) I feel I need to point out the inconsistency you, and several others, have displayed.
In this very thread, we've determined Obama is a coward who who fails to act to save lives because he's also a warmonger starting wars of aggression into things that are none of our business yet he's also Jimmy Carter somehow because he let the UK parliament vote against it (lol, btw) and he's indecisive for seeking congressional approval even though we always argue that the president needs firmer checks by Congress. You guys are attempting to have your cake and eat it too because it's more important to establish that Obama is bad then it is to be consistent in what it is you want.
I get that this is an ideal situation for libertarians, conservatives and other republicans because we all know that no matter what the president does (including nothing), it's going to be pretty unpopular and useful as a partisan beatstick... but it doesn't always have to be point scoring for the team.
Its politics. Everything is fair game for political point scoring, because you know darn well the other team doesn't have any scruples about when they score political points.
Ouze wrote: [
And, as much as I'd like to give you a pass after that riveting gif (which I have saved for further research in my bunk) I feel I need to point out the inconsistency you, and several others, have displayed.
What inconsistency? I think I've already stated that if Obama decides to engage with Syria, I'd be okay with it. o.O
In this very thread, we've determined Obama is a coward who who fails to act to save lives because he's also a warmonger starting wars of aggression into things that are none of our business yet he's also Jimmy Carter somehow because he let the UK parliament vote against it (lol, btw) and he's indecisive for seeking congressional approval even though we always argue that the president needs firmer checks by Congress. You guys are attempting to have your cake and eat it too because it's more important to establish that Obama is bad then it is to be consistent in what it is you want.
Eh... look... I have a great unease with the schadenfreude being experienced in many corners of the web of this, but how 'bout first recognizing the inconsistency on Obama's part as well. He flubbed this one and now he's trying to dig his way out.
I get that this is an ideal situation for libertarians, conservatives and other republicans because we all know that no matter what the president does (including nothing), it's going to be pretty unpopular and useful as a partisan beatstick... but it doesn't always have to be point scoring for the team.
Yeah... that's true.
Lemme have my fun would ya? Need some more dancing boobies? Okay, I give thee, Jennifer Lawrence's bouncing... bouncers.:
Oh God, not again.... At this rate I'll be here all week!
To be honest, I think the inconsistency Ouze is talking about is coming up because nobody really has any concrete information being handed to us. We all know how many have been killed, and we can pretty much guess who did it, but everybodies opinions are trapped in the 'damned if we do, damned if we don't' mindset. On one hand, I personally can say that I'm disappointed that Parliment has voted the UK out. I personally feel that it is our obligation to put an end to this wanton slaughter. On the other hand though, I feel 'Why should we get engaged in another Middle Eastern debacle. Hell, the 7th Brigade, 1st (UK) Armoured Division has been into the desert so many times it's now widely known as 'The Desert Rats'! For once, why can't we not get involved in another embroilment.
TL;DR: Nobody can make up their mind as it's a war between morality and practicality.
Mr. Burning wrote: Serious question to those who may know. Does Obama have to seek congress' approval for intervention?
According to Obama, no. So I guess the only ones who could really answer this would be the Supreme Court.
He's doing this to "pass the buck" though. He "wants" to do intervention, but he's content sitting on it for a couple of weeks, and if Congress says no? Well... it'll be those bad Republicans fault.
The War Powers Resolution of 1973 (50 U.S.C. 1541-1548)[1] is a federal law intended to check the president's power to commit the United States to an armed conflict without the consent of Congress. The resolution was adopted in the form of a United States Congress joint resolution; this provides that the President can send U.S. armed forces into action abroad only by declaration of war by Congress, "statutory authorization," or in case of "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."
The War Powers Resolution requires the President to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30 day withdrawal period, without an authorization of the use of military force or a declaration of war.
What's arguable is that the President could engage the military w/o Congressional approval for 60 days.
2) Politically... Obama’s rhetoric against during the 2007-8 (ish?) presidential campaign made his hypocrisy on executive power painfully obvious, with even his own party insisting that he needed to get a Congressional blessing first. So... Obama's decision to seek congressional authority puts Congress on spot, especially... if they vote no and Assad uses sarin again.
whembly wrote: So... Obama's decision to seek congressional authority puts Congress on spot, especially... if they vote no and Assad uses sarin again.
Or any other poison gas, really. It's hard to get re-elected when your opponents can claim your indecisiveness got hundreds or even thousands killed. (cue pictures of dead children in the streets during election commercials).
Ok, I'll start this off by saying ignore the partisanship of the article, look at the substance. That being said, he raises an extremely good point.
He was so eager to take the axe to us, cutting 20% of our budget, he apparently didn't think about how it would impact our ability to wage war. As it stands, we don't have the money to do this Syria thing, and we gotta go begging for it now.
djones520 wrote: Ok, I'll start this off by saying ignore the partisanship of the article, look at the substance. That being said, he raises an extremely good point.
He was so eager to take the axe to us, cutting 20% of our budget, he apparently didn't think about how it would impact our ability to wage war. As it stands, we don't have the money to do this Syria thing, and we gotta go begging for it now.
djones520 wrote: He was so eager to take the axe to us, cutting 20% of our budget, he apparently didn't think about how it would impact our ability to wage war.
I can see that we are hurting bad. I guess we must be down to 3 guys with slingshots and an NCO with halotosis.
The UK must be Ol' Toby sitting on a fold out chair watching the coast with a megaphone hurling nasty language at anyone that dares approach, what with their miniscule budget.
Post all the silly charts you want Ahtman, the military is broke.
We spent a good chunk of the year not flying, and training, keeping our pilots the best in the world. We've had things like Tuition Assistance cut. Moving our troops around to help keep them proficient in various tasks of their jobs have been slowed. We've had to strike one of our Nuclear subs because we couldn't afford to repair it. We've got a carrier sitting at dock because we can't afford to refuel it.
And way more money is spent on other sections. The Military is only the largest of the non-entitlement sections of the budget. Entitlements are sucking up cash so fast it makes the military look positively spartan.
Plus you can't compare us to any other country in the world except Russia and China. And I'll bet Russia and China don't have veteran benefits like we do. They can cut corners on what they spend money on.
Grey Templar wrote: And way more money is spent on other sections. The Military is only the largest of the non-entitlement sections of the budget. Entitlements are sucking up cash so fast it makes the military look positively spartan.
Plus you can't compare us to any other country in the world except Russia and China. And I'll bet Russia and China don't have veteran benefits like we do. They can cut corners on what they spend money on.
You can damn well bet they don't spend a quarter of their budget on ensuring a moderate quality of life for their service members as well.
Edit: I just checked, a Russian Soldier of equivalent rank gets 1/3rd the pay I do.
Grey Templar wrote: And way more money is spent on other sections. The Military is only the largest of the non-entitlement sections of the budget. Entitlements are sucking up cash so fast it makes the military look positively spartan.
Plus you can't compare us to any other country in the world except Russia and China. And I'll bet Russia and China don't have veteran benefits like we do. They can cut corners on what they spend money on.
You can damn well bet they don't spend a quarter of their budget on ensuring a moderate quality of life for their service members as well.
Edit: I just checked, a Russian Soldier of equivalent rank gets 1/3rd the pay I do.
And I'll bet the Chinese get paid even less.
They also don't spend tons of money on super advanced equipment when average equipment will get the job done.
I kinda wish we started taking a hint out of that playbook. Have plenty of lower tech equipment to cut costs. Keep the high tech stuff for the special forces.
Grey Templar wrote: And way more money is spent on other sections. The Military is only the largest of the non-entitlement sections of the budget. Entitlements are sucking up cash so fast it makes the military look positively spartan.
Plus you can't compare us to any other country in the world except Russia and China. And I'll bet Russia and China don't have veteran benefits like we do. They can cut corners on what they spend money on.
You can damn well bet they don't spend a quarter of their budget on ensuring a moderate quality of life for their service members as well.
Edit: I just checked, a Russian Soldier of equivalent rank gets 1/3rd the pay I do.
And I'll bet the Chinese get paid even less.
Maybe we should stop pointing this out. You'll get some of the more anti-military folks* out there shouting more about how we get paid to much for what we do. *rolls eyes*
* This was not a reference to anyone here specifically, so don't try to read it as such.
Maybe we should stop pointing out that the bloated military budget is bloated. You'll get some poor thinkers who equate that with being anti-military and start trying to make it into an idiotic 'us versus them' turf war.
@djones520 - Welcome to the club - It's not just the US military who get fethed over by their own government. The UK military, despite having the 4th largest military expenditure and the 2nd largest power projection in the world (Owing to our status as the only other nation, aside from the US, who can conduct and independent combined arms assault overseas) regularly takes yearly cuts, mostly in order to fund such wonderful schemes as building a high speed rail link between cities (Which will be nigh unaffordable to regular commuters). The high speed link is proposed to cost £42 billion and yet, we have no carrier capability until 2018 when we get two new carriers. Each of the Queen Elizabeth class carriers (Similar in size to the USS Nimitz) cost in the region of £3.9 billion - so you tell me which would be a more sensible use of funding? Potentially building a further 10 Nimitz sized carriers or joining bankers second homes together with a fancy train system?
It's honestly a shocking state of affairs. I don't mean to be scathing at all here, but the British Army has regiments that are literally older than the US nation, and yet all that history is thrown out of the window when they are disbanded to save money that is then put into building a shiny new office block for Councillor so and so. Bizarrely, the UK government seems to think that reducing the number of regular, experienced troops and replacing them with territorial troops (Who, whilst dedicated, are simply not as experienced or rigorously trained) is a viable solution to cut costs and maintain military capability...
Mr. Burning wrote: Serious question to those who may know. Does Obama have to seek congress' approval for intervention?
Very sticky legally.... the war powers act from the 70's basically tried to curtail the president's capability to wage war, limiting him to 60 days of "war" (i put this in quotations on purpose - the statue is long, and hte exact language of it has often been a sticking point - it defines war as , paraphrasing, "putting american troops at risk of death or severe bodily harm for a substantial, pervasive, and ongoing amount of time").
Basically the President can enact hostilities, and there's feth all congress can do for 60 days. At that point he's supposed to get their permission (in reality if he goes for 60 days thumbing his nose at them, good luck). However, they will not call it a "war", and then the whole situation gets muddy - humanitarian action, peacekeeping mission, interdiction operation, etc etc etc.
Congress at this point has one major recourse they can employ: they can deny funding. Technically there's other things they can do, but this is the one sure-fire, no nonsense way they can stop a military action (despite whatever label has been put on it).
Edit: for some general sense making clarifications. I'm tired, and i haven't put my international law hat on in years. lol
djones520 wrote: According to Obama, no. So I guess the only ones who could really answer this would be the Supreme Court.
He's doing this to "pass the buck" though.
If he hadn't sought congressional approval, there would have been people in here screaming about how he should be impeached for violating the war powers resolution. Again, you guys are trying to have it both ways.
djones520 wrote: According to Obama, no. So I guess the only ones who could really answer this would be the Supreme Court.
He's doing this to "pass the buck" though.
If he hadn't sought congressional approval, there would have been people in here screaming about how he should be impeached for violating the war powers resolution. Again, you guys are trying to have it both ways.
...
A senior State Department official tells Fox News the president’s decision to take military action in Syria still stands, and will indeed be carried out, regardless of whether Congress votes next week to approve the use of such force. ...
That's because every administration since it's been written has held that it's unconstitutional, while simultaneously following it. The reason they do so is because no one really wants to have it somehow get before the Supreme Court and have a decision come down one way or the other. It's more politically palatable for each side to feel like they have the upper hand simultaneously.
For the purposes of this argument, though, it's irrelevant; unless we're going to have a little piece of theater ourselves here and pretend that no one would make an argument that engaging in hostilities without any attack on the US, without congressional approval, wouldn't be a high crime and misdemeanor. That's the best part about this whole situation for the right wing; every choice is somehow wrong.
djones520 wrote: According to Obama, no. So I guess the only ones who could really answer this would be the Supreme Court.
He's doing this to "pass the buck" though.
If he hadn't sought congressional approval, there would have been people in here screaming about how he should be impeached for violating the war powers resolution. Again, you guys are trying to have it both ways.
Us guys? I say go in guns a blazing. Bring the Missouri out of mothballs, and park it 15 miles off the coast. Go to town.
Us guys? I say go in guns a blazing. Bring the Missouri out of mothballs, and park it 15 miles off the coast. Go to town.
I think I now approve...
Especially about the battleship Missouri...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ouze wrote: Ok, so "you guys" aren't a cohesive hive mind, that was a poor choice of words; but I think my point still stands.
Also... I'd like to add that opponents to engage Syria isn't all Republicans... there's a diverse set of groups (R)'s, (D)'s, libertarians and the usual vocal anti-war folks.
Nah, Send NJ. She has experience when it comes to sending Syrian generals to see Allah. Hopefully though this time the Navy doesn't screw with the powder before they send her though.
If the military budget is 682 billion dollars, how the hell is the military broke?! Are they buying every soldier hookers and blow instead of spending it on carrier fuel?
If the military budget is 682 billion dollars, how the hell is the military broke?! Are they buying every soldier hookers and blow instead of spending it on carrier fuel?
It was actually like $660 billion at the start of the fiscal year, then about another 50 billion was lopped off with the sequestration. Next year it's gonna be even lower.
But we spend about $160 billion of that on things like pay, medical costs, etc... for all of the personnel. There's about a million Active Duty guys, and twice that many civilians.
About $240 billion of that is for operations. Things like flying the President around (which is a lot, and involves a lot), shipping all of our equipment to and from Afghanistan, training exercises.and a multitude of other operations that take place.
R&D eats up about $70 billion. Gotta make sure we're staying on top of the heap.
The military doesn't waste a lot of money. We're very fiscally sound, so to speak. We are also very busy though, and everything we do costs money. We were already running at the red line for the year with all the cuts we had received, and now we've got this dropped in our lap.
I'd have to ask you to clarify then what tax you're talking about, then.
Any transaction the a citizen of the SNI engaged in which involved a citizen of the US, prior to 1924, would have been subject to federal tariffs and federal income taxes.
You constantly rail against the concept of scoring points for political reasons. And yet here you are, admitting that you are trying to score points for political reasons while lamely hiding such activity behind .gifs of female breasts.
To me it reads as: "Hey everybody, don't pay attention to anything I said, let us all objectify this famous woman!"
djones520 wrote: We spent a good chunk of the year not flying, and training, keeping our pilots the best in the world.
This is a huge, huge issue currently. Flying's a perishable skill. Guys coming out of the RAG getting next to no flight hours are going to be well and truly fethed down the line.
whembly wrote: Ah... but you see... you got a very charismatic, multiracial, multicultural president... who would reclaim our world's "Prestige" after loathsome monsters of Bush & Co... Who would bring peace to the world and stop the rising oceans and Global Warming(TM). And now here he is, on the verge of starting yet another war without our staunchest allies...
(snip)
I'm already on record that we need to do something...
(snip)
I’m just waiting for the people who shrieked for 10 years about the invasion of Iraq to tell me why this time it’s "different".
And, as much as I'd like to give you a pass after that riveting gif (which I have saved for further research in my bunk) I feel I need to point out the inconsistency you, and several others, have displayed.
In this very thread, we've determined Obama is a coward who who fails to act to save lives because he's also a warmonger starting wars of aggression into things that are none of our business yet he's also Jimmy Carter somehow because he let the UK parliament vote against it (lol, btw) and he's indecisive for seeking congressional approval even though we always argue that the president needs firmer checks by Congress. You guys are attempting to have your cake and eat it too because it's more important to establish that Obama is bad then it is to be consistent in what it is you want.
I get that this is an ideal situation for libertarians, conservatives and other republicans because we all know that no matter what the president does (including nothing), it's going to be pretty unpopular and useful as a partisan beatstick... but it doesn't always have to be point scoring for the team.
Yeah, but he is floundering like Jimmy Carter. Obama warned Syria about crossing the red line, and now we know that Syria has crossed that line 14 TIMES! They're not crossing it, they're dancing on it!
David Cameron lost a very close vote by 13 votes. If he had had the same sort of dossier to present to Parliament like what John Kerry had when he addressed the cameras, he probably would have sneaked a win. Now we know why Cameron didn't have that dossier is because the Obama administration didn't want Cameron to release information that was going to get released 24hrs later anyway!
So, to sum up, Obama has made himself like weak, needlessly lost the political support of a key ally, and is now going cap in hand to congress. If that's not Jimmy Carter Mark 2, then I don't know what is!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Warpig1815 wrote: @djones520 - Welcome to the club - It's not just the US military who get fethed over by their own government. The UK military, despite having the 4th largest military expenditure and the 2nd largest power projection in the world (Owing to our status as the only other nation, aside from the US, who can conduct and independent combined arms assault overseas) regularly takes yearly cuts, mostly in order to fund such wonderful schemes as building a high speed rail link between cities (Which will be nigh unaffordable to regular commuters). The high speed link is proposed to cost £42 billion and yet, we have no carrier capability until 2018 when we get two new carriers. Each of the Queen Elizabeth class carriers (Similar in size to the USS Nimitz) cost in the region of £3.9 billion - so you tell me which would be a more sensible use of funding? Potentially building a further 10 Nimitz sized carriers or joining bankers second homes together with a fancy train system?
It's honestly a shocking state of affairs. I don't mean to be scathing at all here, but the British Army has regiments that are literally older than the US nation, and yet all that history is thrown out of the window when they are disbanded to save money that is then put into building a shiny new office block for Councillor so and so. Bizarrely, the UK government seems to think that reducing the number of regular, experienced troops and replacing them with territorial troops (Who, whilst dedicated, are simply not as experienced or rigorously trained) is a viable solution to cut costs and maintain military capability...
Newsflash: the British army has been getting screwed over by politicians since the 1700s. The British army has never had enough money or equipment. Wellington complained about London, Malborough complained about London, Heck even Alfred the Great was exasperated by London
"The English are feeling the pinch in relation to recent events in Syria and have therefore raised their security level from "Miffed" to "Peeved." Soon, though, security levels may be raised yet again to "Irritated" or even "A Bit Cross." The English have not been "A Bit Cross" since the blitz in 1940 when tea supplies nearly ran out. Terrorists have been re-categorized from "Tiresome" to "A Bloody Nuisance." The last time the British issued a "Bloody Nuisance" warning level was in 1588, when threatened by the Spanish Armada.
The Scots have raised their threat level from "Pissed Off" to "Let's get the Bastards." They don't have any other levels. This is the reason they have been used on the front line of the British army for the last 300 years.
The French government announced yesterday that it has raised its terror alert level from "Run" to "Hide." The only two higher levels in France are "Collaborate" and "Surrender." The rise was precipitated by a recent fire that destroyed France 's white flag factory, effectively paralysing the country's military capability.
Italy has increased the alert level from "Shout Loudly and Excitedly" to "Elaborate Military Posturing." Two more levels remain: "Ineffective Combat Operations" and "Change Sides."
The Germans have increased their alert state from "Disdainful Arrogance" to "Dress in Uniform and Sing Marching Songs." They also have two higher levels: "Invade a Neighbour" and "Lose."
Belgians, on the other hand, are all on holiday as usual; the only threat they are worried about is NATO pulling out of Brussels.
The Spanish are all excited to see their new submarines ready to deploy. These beautifully designed subs have glass bottoms so the new Spanish navy can get a really good look at the old Spanish navy.
Australia, meanwhile, has raised its security level from "No worries" to "She'll be alright, Mate." Two more escalation levels remain: "Crikey! I think we'll need to cancel the barbie this weekend!" and "The barbie is cancelled." So far no situation has ever warranted use of the last final escalation level.
-- John Cleese - British writer, actor and tall person.
Personally I don't think we should do anything about Syria besides send the Russians a fruit basket with a note on it saying "You deal with it"
@Do_I_Not_Like_That: Don't worry, I'm not in need of the newsflash - I've practically grown up on a diet of British military history so I'm well aware that the British Army is constantly and historically fethed over - I should maybe have stated my point a lot more clearly, but the point was that in an age where the excesses of the 18th-19th century are supposedly long gone and the more sensible leadership of the government takes precedent over the supposed excess of the aristocracy , we still have such grand (and, IMO, pointless) schemes as HS2 sucking away funding from more deserving establishments. Anyway, it's a bit OT so I'll leave it at that. Needless to say, I am aware of the historical cutbacks of the British Army and indeed all British military establishments.
@KalashnikovMarine - Hilarious! - especially regarding the French
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: So, to sum up, Obama has made himself like weak, needlessly lost the political support of a key ally, and is now going cap in hand to congress.
The nerve he has, following the law, huh?
I posted several times that whether or not the war powers resolution is constitutional is debatable, but I personally am in the "it's solid law" camp. I know that the actual declaring of war is now archaic and does not happen, but I still believe the intent of the founders were utterly and unambiguously clear in that the decision to begin hostilities rests with the congress, not the president. He has nearly unfettered authority to prosecute those hostilities was as he sees fit; so long as they don't pull the funding, but starting a conflict is not in the purview of the Executive.
The War Powers resolution delegated a little of this authority to the President to deal with exigent emergencies when American holdings are directly attacked. I think this is right and proper as well and in the best interests of the direct national security of the US homeland; while still ultimately retaining that authority where it belongs.
Your analogy is even more laughable when you consider the single thing Carter is most memorable for is the failure of a military operation he authorized, without the prior approval of Congress, which failed due to military incompetence.
You constantly rail against the concept of scoring points for political reasons. And yet here you are, admitting that you are trying to score points for political reasons while lamely hiding such activity behind .gifs of female breasts.
doggie... you need to re-read the thread then.
I've stated that I'm simultaneously of enjoying and weary of the schadenfreude going on with this... I'm mean... it's like making fun of Bush's last name... 'cuz IT'S. RIGHT. THERE! At the same time, I gave kudos to the Prez for doing what he's doing right now.
To me it reads as: "Hey everybody, don't pay attention to anything I said, let us all objectify this famous woman!"
I'm sorry... what did you say? I was distracted by Katie:
Re: Libya - Congress had 2 votes on it. One was an AUMF (which failed) and another one was the limit the presidents funding for "supporting NATO operations in the area", which also failed, thus sort of authorizing what we wound up doing.
You can read about it here, and oh hey, look where we were by the second page? Crazy how that happened.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: I can't remember but was the War Powers Resolution used for Libya, or did Congress vote on it?
Neither... it was a "Kinetic Operation" or some linguistic mumbo-jumbo.
EDIT: See Ouze's article... that's the gist of what happened. Basically said.. we don't aprove... but, we're not going to stop you.
Any transaction the a citizen of the SNI engaged in which involved a citizen of the US, prior to 1924, would have been subject to federal tariffs and federal income taxes.
Not true. Under the treaty of 1842 the Seneca are exempt most taxes and tariffs (again, a subject of much RAGE from the state of New York and IRS, both of whom have been trying to find a way to legally enforce US and State Taxes on SNI citizens), until such time as they should sell the remainder of their New York Territory to the US. As this has not yet happened...
Oh, and for whoever was ranting about testing for organophosphates earlier, apparently this was part of Kerry's proof, according to BBC, though they don't spell out what they were testing for.
Not true. Under the treaty of 1842 the Seneca are exempt most taxes and tariffs (again, a subject of much RAGE from the state of New York and IRS, both of whom have been trying to find a way to legally enforce US and State Taxes on SNI citizens), until such time as they should sell the remainder of their New York Territory to the US. As this has not yet happened...
Well, you learn something new every day.
Also, after a bit of research, the SNI seems horribly racist and authoritarian. I mean, anyone that isn't of native descent must lease property from the tribe?
I've stated that I'm simultaneously of enjoying and weary of the schadenfreude going on with this... I'm mean... it's like making fun of Bush's last name... 'cuz IT'S. RIGHT. THERE! At the same time, I gave kudos to the Prez for doing what he's doing right now.
You're mean and enjoying the schadenfreude, yet tired of it?
At any rate, the point is that it isn't "RIGHT. THERE." It only appears as much to you because you are (minimally) clumsy in an analytic sense, or (maximally) attempting to hide a distaste for the Administration (and the Party it represents) behind a veil of nonsense.
Also, after a bit of research, the SNI seems horribly racist and authoritarian. I mean, anyone that isn't of native descent must lease property from the tribe?
Blame the treaty. No property can be sold outside the Nation (to avoid creating a situation where the US government can claim the property was 'sold' to the US in the form of US citizens buying it [the US has used that angle in the past]) As far as being horribly racist, again, it's due to the treaties the SNI operates under and several things the US has done along the way, along with the convoluted Tammany Hall-esque politics of the Nation. There has been an effort to get some modernization in there (particularly by the displaced Kinzua refugees who have been living in SNI since the US built the dam) as not all Seneca bands had the same rules by which decent is calculated (Kinzua considered you the child of your mother and father, not just your mother, which is how Allegany branch calculated it).
As far as being authoritarian... yeah, I suppose so. It's a one party system (Moe Johns is still jokingly refereed to as 'Chairman Moe') but, surprisingly, it works most of the time, and they generally have a high approval rating, though the last year or so has been a bit entertaining. Anything to do with changing tradition moves at a snails pace, but more important issues like education, public works, pretty much anything that benefits the public as a whole goes through at warp speed, as long as there is money for it. And since the government owns the casinos, the only public 'tax' that is levied is the 'Indian Lease' on the city of Salamanca. Which for a seven story hotel in the center of down town's business district is $500 a year and for a regular house in the suburb runs about $20 - $75, depending on location.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: I can't remember but was the War Powers Resolution used for Libya, or did Congress vote on it?
Correct me if i'm wrong, but Libya was ultimately a UN resolution peacekeeping / humanitarian mission, right ?
No need, then, in that case, to go to congress.
( i could be wrong on this... when Libya was going down, i was sorta all middle-easted out at the time and tried to follow it as little as possible... i thought it was ultimately UN backed though, with the goal of removing Gaddhafi from power, and we withdrew our part of the coalition upon that being confirmed, or shortly thereafter).
Dreadclaw69 wrote: I can't remember but was the War Powers Resolution used for Libya, or did Congress vote on it?
Correct me if i'm wrong, but Libya was ultimately a UN resolution peacekeeping / humanitarian mission, right ?
No need, then, in that case, to go to congress.
( i could be wrong on this... when Libya was going down, i was sorta all middle-easted out at the time and tried to follow it as little as possible... i thought it was ultimately UN backed though, with the goal of removing Gaddhafi from power, and we withdrew our part of the coalition upon that being confirmed, or shortly thereafter).
Doesn't matter what the mission is (sanctioned by UN)...
Now, if it were a NATO mission... then yeah, Prez could go to town because it's Treaty driven.
I wish... I wish if we were going to intervene, we could at least do so in a way that would make a difference, you know? But I don't think we can do that short of invading them.
Not that it matters, as the President would still need to seek Congressional approval after 60 days if it had been a NATO mission from the beginning.
True, but Congress would have a lot harder time saying 'No' to it, if, as an example, Turkey were to invoke Article 5 and the Pres wanted to send troops, etc.
Turkish security forces found a 2kg cylinder with sarin gas after searching the homes of Syrian militants from the Al-Qaeda linked Al-Nusra Front who were previously detained, Turkish media reports. The gas was reportedly going to be used in a bomb.
The sarin gas was found in the homes of suspected Syrian Islamists detained in the southern provinces of Adana and Mersia following a search by Turkish police on Wednesday, reports say. The gas was allegedly going to be used to carry out an attack in the southern Turkish city of Adana.
On Monday, Turkish special anti-terror forces arrested 12 suspected members of the Al-Nusra Front, the Al-Qaeda affiliated group which has been dubbed “the most aggressive and successful arm” of the Syrian rebels. The group was designated a terrorist organization by the United States in December.
Police also reportedly found a cache of weapons, documents and digital data which will be reviewed by police.
Following the searches, five of those detained were released following medical examinations at the Forensic Medicine Institution Adana. Seven suspects remain in custody. Turkish authorities are yet to comment on the arrests.
In a separate incident in Adana, police reportedly received intelligence that an explosive-laden vehicle had entered the town of Adana on Thursday, the Taraf daily reports.
Ankara has attempted to bolster the Syrian opposition without becoming embroiled in the Syrian civil war, a policy which Damascus claims lead to the deadliest act of terrorism on Turkish soil.
On May 11, 51 people were killed and 140 injured after two car bombs exploded in the Turkish town of Reyhanlı, located near the country’s border with Syria.A dozen Turkish nationals have been charged in the twin bombings, and Ankara has accused Damascus of helping the suspects carry out the attack.
“This incident was carried out by an organization which is in close contact to pro-regime groups in Syria and I say this very clearly, with the Syrian Mukhabarat [intelligence agency],” Interior Minister Muammer Guler said.
Syria’s Information Minister Omran Zoubi denied any link the attack, saying his country “did not commit and would never commit such an act because our values would not allow that”.Zoubi further charged the Turkish government had facilitated the flow of arms, explosives, funds and fighters across the country’s border into Syria, claiming that that Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and his party bear direct responsibility [for the attack].”
Reports of chemical weapons use by both Damascus and the Syrian opposition have surrounded the conflict in Syria for months.
Yep. Clearly should be getting involved here. We just have to help those poor rebels!
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: So, to sum up, Obama has made himself like weak, needlessly lost the political support of a key ally, and is now going cap in hand to congress.
The nerve he has, following the law, huh?
I posted several times that whether or not the war powers resolution is constitutional is debatable, but I personally am in the "it's solid law" camp. I know that the actual declaring of war is now archaic and does not happen, but I still believe the intent of the founders were utterly and unambiguously clear in that the decision to begin hostilities rests with the congress, not the president. He has nearly unfettered authority to prosecute those hostilities was as he sees fit; so long as they don't pull the funding, but starting a conflict is not in the purview of the Executive.
The War Powers resolution delegated a little of this authority to the President to deal with exigent emergencies when American holdings are directly attacked. I think this is right and proper as well and in the best interests of the direct national security of the US homeland; while still ultimately retaining that authority where it belongs.
Your analogy is even more laughable when you consider the single thing Carter is most memorable for is the failure of a military operation he authorized, without the prior approval of Congress, which failed due to military incompetence.
Yeah, but Obama is still looking like he is Carter lite on the world stage.
He lost a key ally because they never released intelligence that was going to go public anyway. That is a humiliation.
Are you suggesting that if Cameron had won the vote, Obama would still be in trouble? He wouldn't be. His enemies in congress have smelt blood in the water and have become emboldened by Parliament's decision. Obama is partially responsible for digging a hole for himself.
and thank the goddess he's shoveling away! He might look like a goober and we might lose a little national face, but if that's the price for no war in Syria, so be it.
I wish... I wish if we were going to intervene, we could at least do so in a way that would make a difference, you know? But I don't think we can do that short of invading them.
In the film Hot Shots part 2, President Tug Benson suggested to his chief of staff that they bring the enemy over to America, specifically, Minnesota. They could have a war, solve the international problem, and get some good fishing in. Benson was a visionary!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dreadclaw69 wrote: Thank you very much, I couldn't recall what happened with Libya.
There was a rebellion, fighter jets went in, and the bad guy got overthrown. How did you miss that!
You constantly rail against the concept of scoring points for political reasons. And yet here you are, admitting that you are trying to score points for political reasons while lamely hiding such activity behind .gifs of female breasts.
doggie... you need to re-read the thread then.
I've stated that I'm simultaneously of enjoying and weary of the schadenfreude going on with this... I'm mean... it's like making fun of Bush's last name... 'cuz IT'S. RIGHT. THERE! At the same time, I gave kudos to the Prez for doing what he's doing right now.
To me it reads as: "Hey everybody, don't pay attention to anything I said, let us all objectify this famous woman!"
I'm sorry... what did you say? I was distracted by Katie:
There's been a lot of talk about the absence of a strong and visible anti-war movement, the way there was during the George W. Bush Presidency. While there are protests against intervention in Syria, in general the movement seems to be a lot weaker under Obama. If you guessed that this had something to do with the fact that Obama is a Democrat, you'd be correct!
In 2011, Professors Michael T. Heaney and Fabio Rojas published a study titled: The Partisan Dynamics of Contention: Demobilization Of The Antiwar Movement In The United States 2007-2009 which looked at nearly 6,000 surveys of anti-war demonstrators between January 2007 and December 2009. This one chart basically tells the whole story. The percentage of Democrats attending anti-war protests collapsed at the end of 2008, and in early 2009.
As Democrats are the biggest block of any of these groups, this desertion of the Democratic party was the major blow.
There's been a lot of talk about the absence of a strong and visible anti-war movement, the way there was during the George W. Bush Presidency. While there are protests against intervention in Syria, in general the movement seems to be a lot weaker under Obama. If you guessed that this had something to do with the fact that Obama is a Democrat, you'd be correct!
In 2011, Professors Michael T. Heaney and Fabio Rojas published a study titled: The Partisan Dynamics of Contention: Demobilization Of The Antiwar Movement In The United States 2007-2009 which looked at nearly 6,000 surveys of anti-war demonstrators between January 2007 and December 2009. This one chart basically tells the whole story. The percentage of Democrats attending anti-war protests collapsed at the end of 2008, and in early 2009.
As Democrats are the biggest block of any of these groups, this desertion of the Democratic party was the major blow.
Don't get disheartened! In the interests of keeping Whembly's morale intact, and keeping the topic OT I'll share some Syria news. It seem that the CIA are sending 50, yes 50, trained men into Syria. What their training was and what'll they do remains to be seen. But at least the USA is pulling the finger out.
From the Daily Telegraph:
During a meeting at the White House, the president assured Senator John McCain that after months of delay the US was meeting its commitment to back moderate elements of the opposition.
Mr Obama said that a 50-man cell, believed to have been trained by US special forces in Jordan, was making its way across the border into Syria, according to the New York Times.
The deployment of the rebel unit seems to be the first tangible measure of support since Mr Obama announced in June that the US would begin providing the opposition with small arms.
Congressional opposition delayed the plan for several weeks and rebel commanders publicly complained the US was still doing nothing to match the Russian-made firepower of the Assad regime.
Mr McCain has been a chief critic of the White House's reluctance to become involved in Syria and has long demanded that Mr Obama provide the rebels with arms needed to overthrow the regime.
He and Senator Lindsey Graham, a fellow Republican foreign policy hawk, emerged from the Oval Office meeting on Monday cautiously optimistic that Mr Obama would step up support for the rebels.
"There seems to be emerging from this administration a pretty solid plan to upgrade the opposition," Mr Graham said.
He added that he hoped the opposition would be given "a chance to speak directly to the American people" to counter US fears that they were dominated by al-Qaeda sympathisers.
"They're not trying to replace one dictator, Assad, who has been brutal... to only have al-Qaeda run Syria," Mr Graham said.
The US announced in June, following the first allegations the Assad regime had used chemical weapons, that it would send light arms to the rebels but refused to provide anti-aircraft missiles and other heavy weapons.
American concerns were born partly out of the experience of Afghanistan in the 1980s, when CIA weapons given to the anti-Russian mujahideen were later used by the Taliban.
Never Go to War without the Support of Your People
In 2006, the talking points from London and Washington insisted: we had won the war in Afghanistan, and Iraq was not in civil war. To say otherwise was apostasy.
In 2006, British Defense Secretary John Reid was famously quoted on Afghanistan:
"We are in the south to help and protect the Afghan people construct their own democracy.
"We would be perfectly happy to leave in three years and without firing one shot because our job is to protect the reconstruction."
Adversaries made Mr. Reid’s comment more infamous by misquoting him that British forces would leave "without a single shot being fired."
By 2008, the British alone had fired 4 million shots. They were just getting warmed up. Nor was this the first British intervention in Afghanistan. Coalition Casualties from 2009-2012 eclipsed those from the first eight years by more than two-fold. Today the casualties continue. For what?
Reading the 2006 archives from Afghanistan, remembering that I was there in 2006, 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011, and recalling how the war grew, unveils a vast web of lies, fantasy, magical thinking, and political sorcery that is crazier than the most imaginative fiction.
Were so many politicians and military advisors lying? Or were they just ignorant?
They get their information from briefings. The people briefing the politicians get their information from other briefings, and those briefers get their information from reports, often written by people who never leave any base.
Is it any wonder that commanders go ape when a PowerPoint slide is not perfect? They may need to cannibalize those slides for another briefing. Bad news is often attenuated: a messenger that delivers too much bad news will inevitably suffer for it. Take that from a war correspondent. If you want to be loved, write about popular wars that we win, not unpopular wars that we fumble. Write only about heroes, never about disgraces or war criminals. The truth will not save you when it is bad news. Commanders know this. And so the typical message is, “We were winning when I was there.”
Swooping into Afghanistan for a briefing enables the decision-maker to claim the credibility of “I was there, talking with our commanders,” yet those briefings might as well have been teleconferences between the Pentagon and the White House, or from Earth to Mars.
A small number go the distance to verify ground truth. One of them is Adam Holloway, former British Army officer turned investigative journalist, who then was elected to Parliament.
Mr. Holloway, without consulting his government, slipped into Afghanistan using his own funds, and he searched for the seeds of truth using his own hands. I met Adam there by chance one day on a gravel airstrip at Lashkar Gah, Helmand Province, Afghanistan, in 2006. Shortly before the war really began.
The giant British base of Camp Bastion was under construction deep in the desert of Helmand. I photographed the first aircraft to land on the runway, which was built by my friend, Steve Shaulis. The RAF C-130 landed with no complications. There was not even a fence around the runway.
This was still 2006, when there were practically no defenses around Bastion.
Six years later, during the moonless night of 14 September 2012, Taliban fighters infiltrated the now heavily fortified Camp Bastion and wiped out most of a squadron of US Marine Harrier jets. Marine Sgt. Bradley Atwell was killed defending the squadron, as was the Squadron Commander, Lt. Col. Christopher Raible.
Despite thousands of Coalition casualties by 2012, commanders still so underestimated the enemy that they left guard towers unmanned. It was a costly mistake.
In 2006, Mr. Holloway returned to the UK and asserted that it was a mistake to deploy troops. War was on the winds. Mr. Holloway and I were not magical meteorologists foretelling next year’s hurricane season; we were saying clearly that Hurricane Afghanistan was formed. The only reason you do not see it, is because you are not here, nor are most of those folks making the PowerPoints.
While Mr. Holloway raised the alarm in London, I flew back to America and I wrote twelve major dispatches warning that we were losing the war in Afghanistan. We became unpopular men for delivering bad news.
Adam stood his ground. And over the last seven years, he earned my respect and we became friends. I sometimes ask Adam for his views.
With Syria reaching full pitch in 2013, allegations that President Bashar al-Assad used chemical weapons on 21 August against his own people roiled the airwaves.
A year after the Benghazi attack that claimed our Ambassador and other Americans, we still have few answers. Speculation and conspiracy theories run rampant, while our government dodges the matter.
Yet mere days after the alleged chemical attacks in Syria, President Obama claimed that he had proof that Assad committed this crime against humanity, despite the fact that conditions for investigation in Syria are far more challenging than they are in Benghazi.
In the Middle Eastern environment of perpetual exaggeration, the highest death estimate by the rebels was 1,300 men, women and children killed. The US administration raised the rebel estimate to 1,429. Can we get a blood sample?
The bodies were buried within 24 hours in accordance with Islamic custom. Hardly enough time get an exact count of 1,429. From where did this number derive? Every serious combat trooper, cop, correspondent, anyone who sees action first hand and then sees reports, knows that first reports are always wrong, and often very wrong.
Nobody doubts that chemicals were used, but who did it? A rogue general? And where is the primary source for the count of 1,429?
Are these body reports cobbled together from second or third hand sources that might include double and triple counts, rumors, or complete fabrications? Syria is, after all, the navel of the Middle East, a wellspring for rumors, exaggerations, conspiracy theories, and the most obvious lies created by man.
The casualty count of 1,429 is important. If President Obama plays fast and furious with casualties, it is fair to wonder whether he is playing sloppy with alleged communications intercepts.
In our current nightmare, we find it easier to believe that the NSA is reading our emails than effectively eavesdropping on Syria. The White House should lay its casualty counts on the table, face-up. Its credibility is on the line.
Importantly, by saying we have “proof” of war crimes committed by Assad, we are saying we have proof that Assad is a war criminal. Assad knows the likely scenarios from here:
1) Fight to stay in power and prevail.
2) Fight and lose, and be killed on the streets like Gaddafi, hanged like Saddam, or life in prison.
President Obama has ipso facto called President Assad a war criminal. Assad does not need a powerful calculator to figure his odds if he fails to maintain power.
Last week, while UK and US leaders were rallying to smash Syria in the mouth, I contacted Member of Parliament Adam Holloway for his thoughts. Adam responded within the hour:
“Outrage is not a strategy. I thought military action always had to have a purpose behind it – so what is the endstate here? Hit, and then hope?
“I am not sure in what way even limited strikes help the people living in my constituency: how does this further Britain’s or America’s national security?
“There cannot be a sane person in Britain who would not think it a good thing for us to get involved in the war in Syria if by doing so it would ease the horrors faced by the Syrian people – and dire risks to people in neighbouring countries.
“We must be guided not by our alliance to America, but by our duty to understand that military force should only be used in support of a clear purpose and with a clear objective in mind - in support of our national interest. I am yet to be convinced that there is a strong and clear-cut case that military action will deter the Syrian government from using chemical weapons – nor am I convinced that in 20 years time some other tyrant thinking of using chemical weapons will turn around and say to his or herself “Whoops, better not do that: remember what Obama, Cameron and Hollande did back in the summer of 2013”.
“The use of chemical weapons was indeed a crime against all of humanity. But by firing one missile we are involving ourselves in a civil war on the side of a fractured opposition which includes people with proud links to Al Qaeda. By striking now, without clear cause and purpose, we risk consequences that we have not even thought of: this is a case of hit – and then hope.”
MP Adam Holloway’s erudite words are published with permission.
Adam then emailed that he was going to vote, and of course the rest is history. Adam voted NO, and indeed the British Parliament voted against action in Syria, leaving President Obama absent our most steadfast ally.
Now, on the verge of a nearly unilateral attack, President Obama claims that he is war weary. The French and the Turks still push us to launch, and of course the Saudis and other Gulf states would like to see our missiles fly, though no approval from the UN Security Council is possible with Russia and China blocking.
Realizing that most Americans and our most trusted allies reject Syrian intervention, President Obama now puts it to the Congress to decide. This provides Obama a backdoor to save face, though it would have been more honest to ask Congress up front, had he truly cared about their opinions.
President Obama backed down and, oddly, is taking refuge behind Congress, when he could have said, “I do not have sufficient support from our allies or from other Americans, and as much as it is right to do this, the UN Security Council, many of our foreign allies, and the people who elected me, have spoken. I am, ultimately, a servant to American citizens. You have spoken. I have listened. There will be no attack at this time.”
Those words would reek of authenticity. Credibility would be bolstered. They are not words of weakness. They would be words of humility, spoken by a President who properly consulted Congress, and who listened to the will of the Republic. They would be the words of a leader.
Turkish security forces found a 2kg cylinder with sarin gas after searching the homes of Syrian militants from the Al-Qaeda linked Al-Nusra Front who were previously detained, Turkish media reports. The gas was reportedly going to be used in a bomb.
The sarin gas was found in the homes of suspected Syrian Islamists detained in the southern provinces of Adana and Mersia following a search by Turkish police on Wednesday, reports say. The gas was allegedly going to be used to carry out an attack in the southern Turkish city of Adana.
On Monday, Turkish special anti-terror forces arrested 12 suspected members of the Al-Nusra Front, the Al-Qaeda affiliated group which has been dubbed “the most aggressive and successful arm” of the Syrian rebels. The group was designated a terrorist organization by the United States in December.
Police also reportedly found a cache of weapons, documents and digital data which will be reviewed by police.
Following the searches, five of those detained were released following medical examinations at the Forensic Medicine Institution Adana. Seven suspects remain in custody. Turkish authorities are yet to comment on the arrests.
In a separate incident in Adana, police reportedly received intelligence that an explosive-laden vehicle had entered the town of Adana on Thursday, the Taraf daily reports.
Ankara has attempted to bolster the Syrian opposition without becoming embroiled in the Syrian civil war, a policy which Damascus claims lead to the deadliest act of terrorism on Turkish soil.
On May 11, 51 people were killed and 140 injured after two car bombs exploded in the Turkish town of Reyhanlı, located near the country’s border with Syria.A dozen Turkish nationals have been charged in the twin bombings, and Ankara has accused Damascus of helping the suspects carry out the attack.
“This incident was carried out by an organization which is in close contact to pro-regime groups in Syria and I say this very clearly, with the Syrian Mukhabarat [intelligence agency],” Interior Minister Muammer Guler said.
Syria’s Information Minister Omran Zoubi denied any link the attack, saying his country “did not commit and would never commit such an act because our values would not allow that”.Zoubi further charged the Turkish government had facilitated the flow of arms, explosives, funds and fighters across the country’s border into Syria, claiming that that Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and his party bear direct responsibility [for the attack].”
Reports of chemical weapons use by both Damascus and the Syrian opposition have surrounded the conflict in Syria for months.
Yep. Clearly should be getting involved here. We just have to help those poor rebels!
Well, the rebels are hardly a unified body. There is the Free Syrian Army which is made up of former Syrian Armed Forces personnel as well as local militia units with members of varying ethnicity and religion, including Muslims, Druze, Syrian Christians, Syrian Turks, and Syrian Kurds, as well as foreign fighters from Jordan, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Algeria, Tunisia, and as you probably know, there has been at least one from the US, and I wouldn't be surprised if there were fighters from other countries as well, such as Iraq and Egypt. Then there are groups like Al Nusra Front, who are Al Qaeda affiliates (which also, unfortunately, is the group that the one confirmed American fighter fell in with), but to act like the rebels are some sort of monolithic entity that is all good or all Al Qaeda-affiliates is hugely oversimplifying things. I'm not saying this is what you're doing specifically, KalashnikovMarine, but there certainly seems to be quite a few people who are.
Jihadin wrote: Wait. The 50+ peeps that got trained and went across the border into Syria. Are we forming a new "Front" or training a "Front" that we "like"
Jihadin wrote: Wait. The 50+ peeps that got trained and went across the border into Syria. Are we forming a new "Front" or training a "Front" that we "like"
Could you rephrase the question?
He wants to know if the CIA are going to start up another Al Qaeda group like they did to fight the Soviets or whether they're going to focus on helping one of the existing terrorist groups in Syria.
Turkish security forces found a 2kg cylinder with sarin gas after searching the homes of Syrian militants from the Al-Qaeda linked Al-Nusra Front who were previously detained, Turkish media reports. The gas was reportedly going to be used in a bomb.
The sarin gas was found in the homes of suspected Syrian Islamists detained in the southern provinces of Adana and Mersia following a search by Turkish police on Wednesday, reports say. The gas was allegedly going to be used to carry out an attack in the southern Turkish city of Adana.
On Monday, Turkish special anti-terror forces arrested 12 suspected members of the Al-Nusra Front, the Al-Qaeda affiliated group which has been dubbed “the most aggressive and successful arm” of the Syrian rebels. The group was designated a terrorist organization by the United States in December.
Police also reportedly found a cache of weapons, documents and digital data which will be reviewed by police.
Following the searches, five of those detained were released following medical examinations at the Forensic Medicine Institution Adana. Seven suspects remain in custody. Turkish authorities are yet to comment on the arrests.
In a separate incident in Adana, police reportedly received intelligence that an explosive-laden vehicle had entered the town of Adana on Thursday, the Taraf daily reports.
Ankara has attempted to bolster the Syrian opposition without becoming embroiled in the Syrian civil war, a policy which Damascus claims lead to the deadliest act of terrorism on Turkish soil.
On May 11, 51 people were killed and 140 injured after two car bombs exploded in the Turkish town of Reyhanlı, located near the country’s border with Syria.A dozen Turkish nationals have been charged in the twin bombings, and Ankara has accused Damascus of helping the suspects carry out the attack.
“This incident was carried out by an organization which is in close contact to pro-regime groups in Syria and I say this very clearly, with the Syrian Mukhabarat [intelligence agency],” Interior Minister Muammer Guler said.
Syria’s Information Minister Omran Zoubi denied any link the attack, saying his country “did not commit and would never commit such an act because our values would not allow that”.Zoubi further charged the Turkish government had facilitated the flow of arms, explosives, funds and fighters across the country’s border into Syria, claiming that that Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and his party bear direct responsibility [for the attack].”
Reports of chemical weapons use by both Damascus and the Syrian opposition have surrounded the conflict in Syria for months.
Yep. Clearly should be getting involved here. We just have to help those poor rebels!
If true then that is pretty compelling evidence that we should stay as far away from intervention in Syria as we can. Better to limit our response to humanitarian supplies.
If true then that is pretty compelling evidence that we should stay as far away from intervention in Syria as we can. Better to limit our response to humanitarian supplies.
The flipside is that if true the question is where did this group get sarin gas from.
We're not talking about a homebrew "Syrian Liberation Group"--we're talking about Syrians with ties to Al-Qaeda and their Al-Nusra Front.
A place like Syria with constant warfare leaves an opportunity for groups like that to get their hands on chemical weapons for attacks elsewhere...which is y'know, not a good thing.
If true then that is pretty compelling evidence that we should stay as far away from intervention in Syria as we can. Better to limit our response to humanitarian supplies.
The flipside is that if true the question is where did this group get sarin gas from.
A very good question. All the more reason to focus our intelligence efforts on keeping track of groups like this, or the stockpiles of chemical weapons, rather than get distracted with someone else's civil war.
Kanluwen wrote: We're not talking about a homebrew "Syrian Liberation Group"--we're talking about Syrians with ties to Al-Qaeda and their Al-Nusra Front.
I am well aware of that, and have repeatedly stated the link between the two groups throughout this thread.
Kanluwen wrote: A place like Syria with constant warfare leaves an opportunity for groups like that to get their hands on chemical weapons for attacks elsewhere...which is y'know, not a good thing.
Do you have a solution for this that you'd like to share?
The solution sure as hell isn't "limiting our response to humanitarian supplies".
I'm not going to play armchair general and say "This, this, or this should be done". Especially not because you seem to always be looking for some way to have a disagreement about everything.
Kanluwen wrote: The solution sure as hell isn't "limiting our response to humanitarian supplies".
I'm not going to play armchair general and say "This, this, or this should be done". Especially not because you seem to always be looking for some way to have a disagreement about everything.
Sorry you feel that way. I've agreed with many others on this site who's views I don't always agree with, I'll even joke about it.
I was looking for a genuine, well thought out opinion in favour of intervention. Seems that you're in favour of doing something without any idea what that something is, or what the consequences of that are. You'd rather distract and try to make it personal instead.
Still, if you feel that strongly about my supposed posting habits feel free to click the big 'Ignore' button
That has not been my experience in dealing with you.
Like I said though, I'm not going to play armchair general. The military community and intelligence services are going to have more information that is going to play to whatever they decide to do.
Kanluwen wrote: That has not been my experience in dealing with you.
So your interactions with one poster means that person is "always be looking for some way to have a disagreement about everything". Seems a reasonable and proportionate response. Here's a little secret, not everyone will agree on everything. Especially when people have different viewpoints. That doesn't mean that someone is a always looking for a disagreement.
I like hearing other opinions. I like having my viewpoint challenged. It broadens my understanding. It exposes me to things that I may not have considered, or another way of looking at things. It's just another tool for learning.
Kanluwen wrote: The military community and intelligence services are going to have more information that is going to play to whatever they decide to do
Except they don't get to make the call. POTUS does in the event that Congress gives backing, the military has provided options on what may be best.
Kanluwen wrote: That has not been my experience in dealing with you.
So your interactions with one poster means that person is "always be looking for some way to have a disagreement about everything". Seems a reasonable and proportionate response. Here's a little secret, not everyone will agree on everything. Especially when people have different viewpoints. That doesn't mean that someone is a always looking for a disagreement.
I like hearing other opinions. I like having my viewpoint challenged. It broadens my understanding. It exposes me to things that I may not have considered, or another way of looking at things. It's just another tool for learning.
When you continually challenge someone who lives in a state on the laws of that state, it brings this statement into question. Especially when you continually bring up situations that completely do not apply to the situation at hand.
I am quite aware that "not everyone will agree on everything". However when you continually take a stance that smacks of simple "I don't agree with you because <insert party line here>", you are going to come across as "always looking for a disagreement".
Kanluwen wrote: The military community and intelligence services are going to have more information that is going to play to whatever they decide to do
Except they don't get to make the call. POTUS does in the event that Congress gives backing, the military has provided options on what may be best.
So what you're saying is that the POTUS is presented options by the organizations that I make an explicit mention of as "having more information that is going to play to whatever they decide to do".
Kanluwen wrote: A place like Syria with constant warfare leaves an opportunity for groups like that to get their hands on chemical weapons for attacks elsewhere...which is y'know, not a good thing.
Do you have a solution for this that you'd like to share?
Kanluwen wrote: That has not been my experience in dealing with you.
Like I said though, I'm not going to play armchair general. The military community and intelligence services are going to have more information that is going to play to whatever they decide to do.
Do you know what "the mission" is going to be?
For the life of me, I'm not hearing anything... and if it can't be explained in one sentence... then, it's going to be a clusterfark.
Kanluwen wrote: That has not been my experience in dealing with you.
Like I said though, I'm not going to play armchair general. The military community and intelligence services are going to have more information that is going to play to whatever they decide to do.
Do you know what "the mission" is going to be?
For the life of me, I'm not hearing anything... and if it can't be explained in one sentence... then, it's going to be a clusterfark.
Its called "Mission CYA" or alternatively "Operation Salad Spinner of " (kudos to Veep for that).
“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. “That would change my calculus. That would change my equation.”
Can I channel my inner Code Pink?
President Obama lied. Syrian kids have died.
Now I'm in the camp of NOT doing anything... again, what's the mission?
The Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Wednesday approved a resolution authorizing a U.S. military response to chemical weapons use by Syria, sending the measure to the full chamber for debate next week. The vote was 10 to 7.
The Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Wednesday approved a resolution authorizing a U.S. military response to chemical weapons use by Syria, sending the measure to the full chamber for debate next week. The vote was 10 to 7.
O'snapple. We're going to launch a couple Cruise missiles!!!
The Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Wednesday approved a resolution authorizing a U.S. military response to chemical weapons use by Syria, sending the measure to the full chamber for debate next week. The vote was 10 to 7.
O'snapple. We're going to launch a couple Cruise missiles!!!
Crud... I just hope we get a concise mission soon...
Congress should not be asked to approve a “plan” or a military “strategy”... that is, Congress shouldn't appear (nor really it's in their purview) to mico-manage such military operation. That falls to the President, and thePresident alone as Commander-in-Chief.
Kanluwen wrote: A place like Syria with constant warfare leaves an opportunity for groups like that to get their hands on chemical weapons for attacks elsewhere...which is y'know, not a good thing.
Do you have a solution for this that you'd like to share?
I have some suggestions.
Take out the House of Saud and also break up the Wahabiists. Then follow the money trail to the terrorists themselves and take them out.
Redraw the national borders in the middle east to better fit with the ethnic groups there instead of Churchill's ruler and pencil empire.
Create a Kurdistan.
Kick all the Israelis out of Arab territory and require Israel to compensate Palestinian families that lost land and other resources when that state was formed.
Put a global ban on the production of sarin gas and similar products. Sarin was also used in the Tokyo subway attack back in 1995 so it's not like terrorists can't get their hands on it.
Kanluwen wrote: A place like Syria with constant warfare leaves an opportunity for groups like that to get their hands on chemical weapons for attacks elsewhere...which is y'know, not a good thing.
Do you have a solution for this that you'd like to share?
I have some suggestions.
Uh oh.
Take out the House of Saud and also break up the Wahabiists. Then follow the money trail to the terrorists themselves and take them out.
Alright let's get starter. There is no "the terrorists". There are a lot of different groups with different goals and different ideologies who have different targets and different reasons for fighting, not to mention different locations. The only thing uniting them is a few books.
Redraw the national borders in the middle east to better fit with the ethnic groups there instead of Churchill's ruler and pencil empire.
And how will the current national leaders feel about that? Are they just supposed to go along with it? Have a nice war.
Create a Kurdistan.
Have a nice war.
Kick all the Israelis out of Arab territory and require Israel to compensate Palestinian families that lost land and other resources when that state was formed.
There is so much wrong with this I don't even know where to begin. Have a nice war.
Put a global ban on the production of sarin gas and similar products. Sarin was also used in the Tokyo subway attack back in 1995 so it's not like terrorists can't get their hands on it.
That'll work. So we're going to invade everyone who we think is making the gas?
Or are we going to politely ask them to stop?
Alright let's get starter. There is no "the terrorists". There are a lot of different groups with different goals and different ideologies who have different targets and different reasons for fighting, not to mention different locations. The only thing uniting them is a few books.
So Al Qaeda, Al Nusra, Jemaah Islamiyah don't exist huh? I wasn't refering specifically to the anti-Baathists but islamic terrorists around the world and those who back them and Saudi Arabia constantly appears in that regard.
Redraw the national borders in the middle east to better fit with the ethnic groups there instead of Churchill's ruler and pencil empire.
And how will the current national leaders feel about that? Are they just supposed to go along with it? Have a nice war.
What, leaders like Saddam Hussein and Bashir Assad? Or further afield with Mubarak?
How about the forced separation of Kosovo by NATO forces or Ossetia by Russia? Hardly a new concept.
Create a Kurdistan.
Have a nice war.
Yup, because endless uprisings and attacks across the region are preferable to allowing a distinct ethnic group to have their own country.
Kick all the Israelis out of Arab territory and require Israel to compensate Palestinian families that lost land and other resources when that state was formed.
There is so much wrong with this I don't even know where to begin.
Choose one point if there are so many to choose from. That is if you actually know what you're talking about..
Put a global ban on the production of sarin gas and similar products. Sarin was also used in the Tokyo subway attack back in 1995 so it's not like terrorists can't get their hands on it.
That'll work. So we're going to invade everyone who we think is making the gas?
Why do you think that the US military is some kind of international police force that has to invade countries to get anything done? Are you really opposed to stopping the production of sarin gas?
pities2004 wrote: The whole 90 day no boots on the ground will be irrelevant once Syria retaliates.
It is irrelevant as soon as the congress critters authorize the use of force. Once they authorize the use of force (their constitutional responsibility) the executive branch directs the use of force as it sees fit (the executive branch's constitutional responsibility). Congress really can't win the fight on how the executive chooses to apply force once they authorize it. Best case is they can quit funding military action they do not like, but there is zero chance the congress critters would actually do that and risk 'not funding the troops'.
Jihadin wrote:Wait. The 50+ peeps that got trained and went across the border into Syria. Are we forming a new "Front" or training a "Front" that we "like"
Wouldn't be the frist time the CIA has done that.. or subverted an already existing group.
cadbren wrote:
So Al Qaeda, Al Nusra, Jemaah Islamiyah don't exist huh? I wasn't refering specifically to the anti-Baathists but islamic terrorists around the world and those who back them and Saudi Arabia constantly appears in that regard.
Just have hop in on this, because it's obvious you missed his point. 'Terrorism' really doesn't exist. It's just a word given to people fighting asymmetrical warfare on the side opposed to yours. When they're on your side, they're 'freedom fighters' or 'the resistance'. When they're neutral they're 'indigenous opposition' or 'humint resources' (Or CIA Agents).
I will make one suggestion that will most likely work, and send the right sort of message to everyone what happens when they tell the US to go feth itself and play with WMDs, if you really want to send a message.. Put everyone you don't want dead in Syria in fortified villages on the Turkish boarder and declare the rest of the country a free fire zone, shoot everything that moves, and carpet bomb the entire place with nape and grape till there's no stone standing on another stone, and then offer to rebuild everything for a percentage of the gas line royalties to Europe. Don't play nice, stick to conventional weapons, and just kill until there is absolutely nothing left alive.
Immoral, illegal, and disturbing? Oh, yes. But absolutely no one will fail to get the message, and showing that you have the will to do it will shut guys like Iran and NK up for a long time.
Alright let's get starter. There is no "the terrorists". There are a lot of different groups with different goals and different ideologies who have different targets and different reasons for fighting, not to mention different locations. The only thing uniting them is a few books.
So Al Qaeda, Al Nusra, Jemaah Islamiyah don't exist huh? I wasn't refering specifically to the anti-Baathists but islamic terrorists around the world and those who back them and Saudi Arabia constantly appears in that regard.
EDIT:Baron said something better than me
What, leaders like Saddam Hussein and Bashir Assad? Or further afield with Mubarak?
How about the forced separation of Kosovo by NATO forces or Ossetia by Russia? Hardly a new concept.
Quite the different concept. Kosovo and Ossetia declared their own independence. You would force independence on people. People who, I might add, will go on hating each other.
Yup, because endless uprisings and attacks across the region are preferable to allowing a distinct ethnic group to have their own country.
When the region that is theirs is currently a part of four different countries? Yes. When a real fight comes up, we'll talk.
Kick all the Israelis out of Arab territory and require Israel to compensate Palestinian families that lost land and other resources when that state was formed.
There is so much wrong with this I don't even know where to begin.
Choose one point if there are so many to choose from. That is if you actually know what you're talking about..
Let's start with the point where you are kicking a group of people out of their land and then making them pay for it. The Palestinians are not peaceful, I don't think we can have an intelligent discussion if that's what you think.
Put a global ban on the production of sarin gas and similar products. Sarin was also used in the Tokyo subway attack back in 1995 so it's not like terrorists can't get their hands on it.
That'll work. So we're going to invade everyone who we think is making the gas?
Why do you think that the US military is some kind of international police force that has to invade countries to get anything done? Are you really opposed to stopping the production of sarin gas?
Not really, this is just an unrealistic expectation. And how do you expect to get anything you just said done? By asking nicely? And I don't want the U.S. to be an international police force. I want to let everyone die.
djones520 wrote: According to our SecState, Arab countries have offered to fund this.
Brings me back to the recent thread about the US military merc'ing itself out.
I say screw that. We pay our own way, or we don't at all. They have military's. Let them use their own, if they want this done.
I say just pressure the UN to make mercs legal via a licensing system with contracts on file. Sure, it's a lot of paperwork, but it deals with the problem AND keeps it limited to parties who want to be involved. Don't want ot send your own army? Get out your check book.
Syria resolution passes the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on a 10-7 vote.
Voting in favor are: Boxer, Cardin, Shaheen, [see forum posting rules], Durbin, Kaine, Corker, Flake, McCain
Voting against are: Udall (D-N.M.), Murphy, Risch, Rubio, Johnson, Barrasso, Paul
The senators from Arizona, both Republican, one who said earlier he would note vote yes (McCain), have both kissed their chances at re-election goodbye.
The senators from Arizona, both Republican, one who said earlier he would note vote yes (McCain), have both kissed their chances at re-election goodbye.
Dollars to rubles says McCain still gets reelected, assuming he seeks another term.
Still, interesting knowledge to have. Thanks for the update. Good to see Durbin doing the right thing.
You know what really bothers me for all of this bull gak? I didn't hear any of these chicken hawks screaming for blood during the tens of thousands of massacres that have occurred across this globe in the last 30 years. What makes Syria so much more special then Darfur or Ethiopia? At least there was clear sides about who would be happy to see us and who'd try to kill us in our sleep there. Why does the President and his Chickenhawk allies so desperately wish to aid and abet the enemy? That's what we'd be doing in Syria. We'd be helping an enemy we've been fighting for over twenty years gain more power and resources. An enemy we know has chemical weapons and has used them. (Like I said, ask the Turks they have proved the Syrian Rebels, aka AQ have Sarin) what desperate cause engages the military's mandate from the federal government which is to provide for the common defense of OUR COUNTRY. It's not about Obama vs. Bush, like some people have suggested (not here but else where) it's that the population learned not to take a load of horse gak from Bush, and learned to realize when we're being railroaded to something not in the national interest from Bush. We learned as a nation from the build up from Iraq, and we the people have had enough of the bs, enough of the war cycle we have made for ourselves. If any one is to intervene in Syria, let the U.N. send a task force led by the Russians, instead of blundering in bassackwards on our own with no support, an internationally mandated task force led by a traditional Syrian ally with a military presence in Syria already is a fantastic plan. (Russia leases a naval port in Syria). I would happily say we should support that! Perhaps by sending the Russian officer leading the task force a fruit basket and a card or something.
You know what really bothers me for all of this bull gak? I didn't hear any of these chicken hawks screaming for blood during the tens of thousands of massacres that have occurred across this globe in the last 30 years. What makes Syria so much more special then Darfur or Ethiopia? At least there was clear sides about who would be happy to see us and who'd try to kill us in our sleep there. Why does the President and his Chickenhawk allies so desperately wish to aid and abet the enemy? That's what we'd be doing in Syria. We'd be helping an enemy we've been fighting for over twenty years gain more power and resources. An enemy we know has chemical weapons and has used them. (Like I said, ask the Turks they have proved the Syrian Rebels, aka AQ have Sarin) what desperate cause engages the military's mandate from the federal government which is to provide for the common defense of OUR COUNTRY. It's not about Obama vs. Bush, like some people have suggested (not here but else where) it's that the population learned not to take a load of horse gak from Bush, and learned to realize when we're being railroaded to something not in the national interest from Bush. We learned as a nation from the build up from Iraq, and we the people have had enough of the bs, enough of the war cycle we have made for ourselves. If any one is to intervene in Syria, let the U.N. send a task force led by the Russians, instead of blundering in bassackwards on our own with no support, an internationally mandated task force led by a traditional Syrian ally with a military presence in Syria already is a fantastic plan. (Russia leases a naval port in Syria). I would happily say we should support that! Perhaps by sending the Russian officer leading the task force a fruit basket and a card or something.
The cynic in me is saying that "the reason" why the administration is engaging on this "Syrian issue" is to distract the American public.
Kosovo and Ossetia declared their own independence. You would force independence on people. People who, I might add, will go on hating each other.
In both instances the nations to whom the regions broke away wanted to retain their land. The only reason they were unable to do so in both instances was outside interference from larger powers. The Kurds do want their own land, it was part of the reason that Saddam gassed them in the 80s, they rebelled. Then they were encouraged to rise up again by coalition forces in the 90s and again in the 2000s. There was talk about an independent region for them but Turkey was against it as it would encourage their own Kurds to break away.
Chechnya attemped to break away from Russia and there was a vicious war which included terrorist attacks against civilian targets in Russia.
The only real differences here are the military capabilities of the actors involved.
Let's start with the point where you are kicking a group of people out of their land and then making them pay for it.
I don't regard Israel iteself as arab land so get that fantasy out of your head. I'm talking about the occupied zones and the settlements in what is referred to as Palestinian territories.
When the original Palestinians left their villages to go into exile, they lost their lands, their houses. They should be compensated for those things.
And I don't want the U.S. to be an international police force. I want to let everyone die.
You answered your own question in the post. Firstly, the UN is involved in Darfur and Ethiopia. The UN cannot become involved in Syria because of one big veto button. The one you addressed in your post. Russia. Syria is a MAJOR arms buyer from Russia, and as you've pointed out, they have a military base there. As such it's in Russia's interests to keep Assad in power. Ethiopia and Sudan, not so much. Not that Ethiopia is really having the issues that the Sudan, or Syria does.
So because of that, we cannot act through the UN channels, which means we have to act more unilaterally.
Immoral, illegal, and disturbing? Oh, yes. But absolutely no one will fail to get the message, and showing that you have the will to do it will shut guys like Iran and NK up for a long time.
Both of those nations are full of windbags. Aside from spurious accusations of supporting Hesbollah or whoever, what has Iran actually done against the West? Kicking foreign powers out of your country doesn't count. I'd be far more concerned about the ones that immigrate to the West than the whole lot of them back in sandland. I assume you saw the bit recently where Sweden has opened its borders to any Syrian national wanting to "get out"? There are millions of refugees and Sweden is only 7.5 million, not sure what they're trying to do but they've just opened up Sweden and the EU by extension to countless potential jihadists. From a stability point of view, this poses a far greater threat to Western interests and needs to be addressed rather than randomly blowing up people in their own homes.
Immoral, illegal, and disturbing? Oh, yes. But absolutely no one will fail to get the message, and showing that you have the will to do it will shut guys like Iran and NK up for a long time.
Both of those nations are full of windbags. Aside from spurious accusations of supporting Hesbollah or whoever, what has Iran actually done against the West? Kicking foreign powers out of your country doesn't count. I'd be far more concerned about the ones that immigrate to the West than the whole lot of them back in sandland. I assume you saw the bit recently where Sweden has opened its borders to any Syrian national wanting to "get out"? There are millions of refugees and Sweden is only 7.5 million, not sure what they're trying to do but they've just opened up Sweden and the EU by extension to countless potential jihadists. From a stability point of view, this poses a far greater threat to Western interests and needs to be addressed rather than randomly blowing up people in their own homes.
Iran is responsible for hundreds of dead US soldiers in Iraq, directly, and indirectly, with their supplying and training AQIR, and even overt attacks on our forces. That's just one example.
Iran is responsible for hundreds of dead US soldiers in Iraq, directly, and indirectly, with their supplying and training AQIR, and even overt attacks on our forces. That's just one example.
Kosovo and Ossetia declared their own independence. You would force independence on people. People who, I might add, will go on hating each other.
In both instances the nations to whom the regions broke away wanted to retain their land. The only reason they were unable to do so in both instances was outside interference from larger powers. The Kurds do want their own land, it was part of the reason that Saddam gassed them in the 80s, they rebelled. Then they were encouraged to rise up again by coalition forces in the 90s and again in the 2000s. There was talk about an independent region for them but Turkey was against it as it would encourage their own Kurds to break away.
Chechnya attemped to break away from Russia and there was a vicious war which included terrorist attacks against civilian targets in Russia.
The only real differences here are the military capabilities of the actors involved.
Now you've merged two arguments and used my argument against one as your focus point to enforce your argument against the other. The problem still remains, the kurds live in four different countries, and no power wants to deal with that mess. Then You want to separate all the ethnic groups in the middle east and divide nations up that way. Guess what. The ones that hate each other will go on hating each other, especially since a lot of them will be pissed off their lands were just stolen.
Let's start with the point where you are kicking a group of people out of their land and then making them pay for it.
I don't regard Israel iteself as arab land so get that fantasy out of your head. I'm talking about the occupied zones and the settlements in what is referred to as Palestinian territories.
When the original Palestinians left their villages to go into exile, they lost their lands, their houses. They should be compensated for those things.
It's not like that didn't happen 60 years ago or anything. And you wouldn't just be kicking the israelis out. You would also need to kick out the christians, since(surprise, surprise) there is violence against christians. And then you need to build a giant wall around the whole place to stop missile fire from entering israeli territory. Otherwise, guess what, the Israelis will just take over the place again because they don't appreciate being bombed.
And I don't want the U.S. to be an international police force. I want to let everyone die.
Hey, death solves all the problems. No one would be around to complain about it if you killed all members of an ethnic group. Sure, it might bite you in the back immediately, but no one will come looking for land later. Like the native americans. Virtually wiped out. They've got little land left and little to no power. And the best part? The few that remain have adapted to american culture.
Now, give me something better than a facepalm and explain how you want to do any of this stuff without U.S. military intervention.
I understand from your evident cynicism that you're going to disagree with me, but I feel it's important to at least mention the reason I support it. The people of Syria have made it clear that they no longer consent to be ruled by a tyrant. I think that it's imperative to help them realize that goal. Any government put into place subsequently wouldn't be perfect, I get that. But it is important to get the process of national evolution started. Perhaps that's naive, but I don't believe it's acceptable to say 'not my problem' and walk away. Asad gassed civilians. He has to be removed. I am glad that my senator voted in the direction that his constituents wanted him to vote, even if he didn't agree with it personally.
Jimsolo wrote: I understand from your evident cynicism that you're going to disagree with me, but I feel it's important to at least mention the reason I support it. The people of Syria have made it clear that they no longer consent to be ruled by a tyrant.
Have they? What percentage have? With so much foreign intervention there right now we have no idea how strong the local rebel support actually is. It's been financed and supplied by outside entities suggesting that this is not the great uprising it's claimed to be. The fact it's dragged on as long as it has suggests considerable support for the current regime remains. Do their opinions not matter on this?
You know damn well if that individual get shot down deep in Syria and was captured by Assad forces that everyone going to get a front row ticket on the "live" image of a badly beaten American Pilot if he/she wasn't killed out right upon captured. The a majority of everyone on this board who supported action against Syria going to want more then Air Strikes. What would happen if they refuse to turn him/her over to us. Hold a trial. Found guilty and executed for killing "women and children" from the mission. Stick with guided missiles only. I know the ships will be sealed when they attack but when Assad forces respond if they are able they're going to saturate the Air Defense system to a destroyer or since they are using radar or something stupid send something lke a Silkworm missile into a civilian tanker.
Jihadin wrote: You know damn well if that individual get shot down deep in Syria and was captured by Assad forces that everyone going to get a front row ticket on the "live" image of a badly beaten American Pilot if he/she wasn't killed out right upon captured. The a majority of everyone on this board who supported action against Syria going to want more then Air Strikes. What would happen if they refuse to turn him/her over to us. Hold a trial. Found guilty and executed for killing "women and children" from the mission. Stick with guided missiles only. I know the ships will be sealed when they attack but when Assad forces respond if they are able they're going to saturate the Air Defense system to a destroyer or since they are using radar or something stupid send something lke a Silkworm missile into a civilian tanker.
Do you think Assad would be that stupid? Right now he's starting down a few cruise missiles, and possibly an handful of air strikes. To do what you describe, in direct violation of the Geneva Convention articles that Syria is a signatory for, would invate a full scale ass whomping from the strongest military machine this world has ever had the grace of seeing.
Assad has the opportunity to survive the first option. He'll be playing cards with Saddam if he took the second.
Hell, even a man who routinely fed people to lions for his own amusement didn't have the cajones to do what you just suggested.
You forgot about the pilots that Saddam forces captured before the ground invasion? They didn't look to healthy to me. Assad I'm willing to bet would probably get away with it. He has Russia on his side. Mind you we be going it alone unless NATO members come in to assist. Your applying western moral against Middle East hatred. Combat makes anything possible and like I said before to someone else who thinks Middle East has the same morals we do. If your an American and captured you are most 110% up the Mississippi River in a full blown out flood without paddle. So if they executed the pilot under their law then we best be ready to start changing laws in other Middle East countries because I for one has a feeling that I be right when and if they do capture a American pilot.
Mind you the Greatest Military that ever walked this Earth and just recently retired from has dealt with a very creative and imaginary enemy. What if Assad forces does not capture the pilot but one of the other Organizations that support Assad. I would not put it past them if they executed the him/her.
Exactly. Further. Oil and gas flows from the Middle East flow to Europe, not the US. Once again the US is saving Europe's ass.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jimsolo wrote: I understand from your evident cynicism that you're going to disagree with me, but I feel it's important to at least mention the reason I support it. The people of Syria have made it clear that they no longer consent to be ruled by a tyrant. I think that it's imperative to help them realize that goal. Any government put into place subsequently wouldn't be perfect, I get that. But it is important to get the process of national evolution started. Perhaps that's naive, but I don't believe it's acceptable to say 'not my problem' and walk away. Asad gassed civilians. He has to be removed. I am glad that my senator voted in the direction that his constituents wanted him to vote, even if he didn't agree with it personally.
Yo9u remove Assad and AlQaeda takes over. Thats just awesome.
Frazzled wrote: Yo9u remove Assad and AlQaeda takes over. Thats just awesome.
The Al Nusra Front has a fighting strength of about 7,000 people. Mean while, the Free Syrian Army, the fighting arm of the largest "rebel" group, which has set up a provincial government and has received some foreign recognition, has over 80,000 people under arms, mostly defectors from the Syrian Army. They also don't exactly cooperate with Al Nusra. So I think a lot of people are blowing this whole "Al Qaeda" thing out of proportion to push their isolationist stance.
I think my "favorite" part of all this is listening to some Republican lawmakers talk about using the International Criminal Court in the Hague to deal with the Assad and his use of Chemical Weapons. That made my day.
Exactly. Further. Oil and gas flows from the Middle East flow to Europe, not the US. Once again the US is saving Europe's ass.
Saving Europe's ass in the last few years can also be translated to: "Destabilizing the middle east with fake wars so that the oil price in the international markets is inflated and we can have higher profits when we start selling oil ourselves"...
Excuse me while I go get a fresh new batch of tin foil hats, my previous stock has just ran out.
BaronIveagh wrote: I say just pressure the UN to make mercs legal via a licensing system with contracts on file. Sure, it's a lot of paperwork, but it deals with the problem AND keeps it limited to parties who want to be involved. Don't want ot send your own army? Get out your check book.
An alleged PMC/Operator calling for the legitimization of his supposed profession? No conflict of interests there
The Syrian rebels posed casually, standing over their prisoners with firearms pointed down at the shirtless and terrified men.
The prisoners, seven in all, were captured Syrian soldiers. Five were trussed, their backs marked with red welts. They kept their faces pressed to the dirt as the rebels’ commander recited a bitter revolutionary verse.
“For fifty years, they are companions to corruption,” he said. “We swear to the Lord of the Throne, that this is our oath: We will take revenge.”
The moment the poem ended, the commander, known as “the Uncle,” fired a bullet into the back of the first prisoner’s head. His gunmen followed suit, promptly killing all the men at their feet.
This scene, documented in a video smuggled out of Syria a few days ago by a former rebel who grew disgusted by the killings, offers a dark insight into how many rebels have adopted some of the same brutal and ruthless tactics as the regime they are trying to overthrow.
As the United States debates whether to support the Obama administration’s proposal that Syrian forces should be attacked for using chemical weapons against civilians, this video, shot in April, joins a growing body of evidence of an increasingly criminal environment populated by gangs of highwaymen, kidnappers and killers.
The video also offers a reminder of the foreign policy puzzle the United States faces in finding rebel allies as some members of Congress, including Senator John McCain, press for more robust military support for the opposition.
In the more than two years this civil war has carried on, a large part of the Syrian opposition has formed a loose command structure that has found support from several Arab nations, and, to a more limited degree, the West. Other elements of the opposition have assumed an extremist cast, and openly allied with Al Qaeda.
Across much of Syria, where rebels with Western support live and fight, areas outside of government influence have evolved into a complex guerrilla and criminal landscape.
That has raised the prospect that American military action could inadvertently strengthen Islamic extremists and criminals.
Abdul Samad Issa, 37, the rebel commander leading his fighters through the executions of the captured soldiers, illustrates that very risk.
Known in northern Syria as “the Uncle” because two of his deputies are his nephews, Mr. Issa leads a relatively unknown group of fewer than 300 fighters, one of his former aides said. The former aide, who smuggled the video out of Syria, is not being identified for security reasons.
A trader and livestock herder before the war, Mr. Issa formed a fighting group early in the uprising by using his own money to buy weapons and underwrite the fighters’ expenses.
His motivation, his former aide said, was just as the poem he recited said: revenge.
In Washington on Wednesday, Secretary of State John Kerry addressed the issue of radicalized rebels in an exchange with Representative Michael McCaul, a Texas Republican. Mr. Kerry insisted, “There is a real moderate opposition that exists.”
Mr. Kerry said that there were 70,000 to 100,000 “oppositionists.” Of these, he said, some 15 percent to 20 percent were “bad guys” or extremists.
Mr. McCaul responded by saying he had been told in briefings that half of the opposition fighters were extremists.
Much of the concern among American officials has focused on two groups that acknowledge ties to Al Qaeda. These groups — the Nusra Front and the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria — have attracted foreign jihadis, used terrorist tactics and vowed to create a society in Syria ruled by their severe interpretation of Islamic law.
They have established a firm presence in parts of Aleppo and Idlib Provinces and in the northern provincial capital of Raqqa and in Deir al-Zour, to the east on the Iraqi border.
While the jihadis claim to be superior fighters, and have collaborated with secular Syrian rebels, some analysts and diplomats also note that they can appear less focused on toppling President Bashar al-Assad. Instead, they said, they focus more on establishing a zone of influence spanning Iraq’s Anbar Province and the desert eastern areas of Syria, and eventually establishing an Islamic territory under their administration.
Other areas are under more secular control, including the suburbs of Damascus. In East Ghouta, for example, the suburbs east of the capital where the chemical attack took place, jihadis are not dominant, according to people who live and work there.
And while the United States has said it seeks policies that would strengthen secular rebels and isolate extremists, the dynamic on the ground, as seen in the execution video from Idlib and in a spate of other documented crimes, is more complicated than a contest between secular and religious groups.
Mr. Issa’s father was opposed to President Hafez al-Assad, the father of Syria’s current president. He disappeared in 1982, according to Mr. Issa’s accounts.
Mr. Issa, the aide said, believes his father was killed during a 27-day government crackdown on the Muslim Brotherhood that year, known as the Hama massacre.
By the time he was a young man, Mr. Issa was vocally antigovernment and was arrested and imprisoned twice for a total of nine months, the aide said.
When the uprising against Bashar al-Assad started two and a half years ago, the family saw it as a means to try to settle old scores.
At first, people who know Mr. Issa said, he was a protester, and then he led fighters in small skirmishes. By last year he was running a training camp in the highlands near Turkey.
By this year, the aide said, he was gathering weapons from relatives and Arab businessmen he knew from his work as a trader and, at least once, from the Western-supported Supreme Military Council of the Free Syrian Army, the rebel forces.
(Two representatives of the military council declined to comment on the council’s military collaboration or logistical support for Mr. Issa’s group. Mr. Issa could not be reached for comment over two days this week.)
By the spring, his group had taken a resonant name: Jund al-Sham, which it shares with three international terrorist groups, and another group in Syria.
Its relationship — if any — with these other groups is not clear.
Mr. Issa’s former aide and two other men who have met or investigated him said he appears to assume identities of convenience.
But, they said, one of his tactics has been to promise to his fighters what he calls “the extermination” of Alawites — the minority Islamic sect to which the Assad family belongs, and which Mr. Issa blames for Syria’s suffering.
This sentiment may have driven Mr. Issa’s decision to execute his prisoners in the video, his former aide said. The soldiers had been captured when Mr. Issa’s fighters overran a government checkpoint north of Idlib in March.
Their cellphones, the former aide said, had videos of soldiers raping Syrian civilians and looting.
Mr. Issa declared them all criminals, he said, and a revolutionary trial was held. They were found guilty.
Mr. Issa, the former aide said, then arranged for their execution to be videotaped in April so he could show his work against Mr. Assad and his military to donors, and seek more financing.
The video ends abruptly after his fighters dump the soldiers’ broken bodies into a well.
One of the participants, a young man wearing a purple fleece jacket, looks into the camera and smiles.
He's been supplying them with weapons, money, trainers, and AAA so this is the next logical step. It frustrates Obama, and it means their system might get in some actual combat testing against the weapon systems it was designed to work against.
Jihadin wrote:UN authorizing the status of "Mercs". All we need now is a place called "Outreach"
ROFL. I'll gladly take the first madcat off the Lockheed assembly line (you know, since compact fusion reactors seem to be their thing now). The Japanese have already built a huge mech suit. We just need something to power it and an ipod to play anime theme music on external speakers. Mount you some missile launchers, convince Rhinemetal to produce a Gatling gun in 105mm and go Gundam on someone's ass. (We all know it's coming, along with power armored marines and cybernetilly modified soldiers.) Sadly, I'm betting maint on it would be a huge bitch in the field. Probably better to stick to tanks for now.
Dreadclaw69 wrote:
An alleged PMC/Operator calling for the legitimization of his supposed profession? No conflict of interests there
It's the best sort of solution: everyone gets what they want!
Dreadclaw69 wrote:
An alleged PMC/Operator calling for the legitimization of his supposed profession? No conflict of interests there
It's the best sort of solution: everyone gets what they want!
Translation; I'm in favour of getting involved in a messy civil war with no clear side to back, with no clear objective, with no long term solution, at not benefit to the US simply because I want paid
Translation; I'm in favour of getting involved in a messy civil war with no clear side to back, with no clear objective, with no long term solution, at not benefit to the US simply because I want paid
Well, think on it this way: is the money worth the lack of your own kids bleeding out in the sand someplace when it eventually becomes a really big problem? I know the US's answer to that in locations where you replace the word 'sand' with 'jungle' in the previous sentence is Yes.
Translation; I'm in favour of getting involved in a messy civil war with no clear side to back, with no clear objective, with no long term solution, at not benefit to the US simply because I want paid
Well, think on it this way: is the money worth the lack of your own kids bleeding out in the sand someplace when it eventually becomes a really big problem? I know the US's answer to that in locations where you replace the word 'sand' with 'jungle' in the previous sentence is Yes.
Hmmmm.... sounds a little Danegeld to me.
Best solution - don't get involved. That way we aren't sending our servicemen and women into a pointless conflict, and we aren't handing money over to mercenaries either.
Translation; I'm in favour of getting involved in a messy civil war with no clear side to back, with no clear objective, with no long term solution, at not benefit to the US simply because I want paid
Well, think on it this way: is the money worth the lack of your own kids bleeding out in the sand someplace when it eventually becomes a really big problem? I know the US's answer to that in locations where you replace the word 'sand' with 'jungle' in the previous sentence is Yes.
Hmmmm.... sounds a little Danegeld to me.
Best solution - don't get involved. That way we aren't sending our servicemen and women into a pointless conflict, and we aren't handing money over to mercenaries either.
There you go. Alternatively, if you want to get involved as a nation, do it on the humanitarian front.
After all, if you really had the will to make a statement, the site it was launched from, and the headquarters of the Assad regime would be nuked, as a warning to the rest of the world, that WMDs will be met with WMDs.
I hate to point this out, but 'not being involved' hasn't been viable or even possible since about the invention of the Telephone, and is absolutely a myth in the era of Wal-Mart and the 24 hour news network. You would be astonished the level of 'involved' that goes on in this world these days, and it all winds it's way back to big money and the corridors of power, whether in Moscow, Beijing or, Washington. I'm told, and I'm not sure I believe this, but it doesn't seem impossible, that companies in the US and Europe own 80% of the mineral right in Africa, by one means or another (the trial of Bosco Ntaganda will be quite interesting, I think, to see where all the money that financed him came from. You want to know why the US never intervened? Dollars to Krugerrands because they were financing part of the horror there).
Per current U.S. policy as regards to warfare, a chemical, is a germ/bug, is a nuke. Since we don't practice chemical or biological warfare, the use of such things against us can and will be met with nuclear retaliation.
Edit:
Meanwhile, here's something I think every American can agree on.
Poll: Majority Of Americans Approve Of Sending Congress To Syria
WASHINGTON—As President Obama continues to push for a plan of limited military intervention in Syria, a new poll of Americans has found that though the nation remains wary over the prospect of becoming involved in another Middle Eastern war, the vast majority of U.S. citizens strongly approve of sending Congress to Syria.
The New York Times/CBS News poll showed that though just 1 in 4 Americans believe that the United States has a responsibility to intervene in the Syrian conflict, more than 90 percent of the public is convinced that putting all 535 representatives of the United States Congress on the ground in Syria—including Senate pro tempore Patrick Leahy, House Speaker John Boehner, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, and, in fact, all current members of the House and Senate—is the best course of action at this time.
“I believe it is in the best interest of the United States, and the global community as a whole, to move forward with the deployment of all U.S. congressional leaders to Syria immediately,” respondent Carol Abare, 50, said in the nationwide telephone survey, echoing the thoughts of an estimated 9 in 10 Americans who said they “strongly support” any plan of action that involves putting the U.S. House and Senate on the ground in the war-torn Middle Eastern state. “With violence intensifying every day, now is absolutely the right moment—the perfect moment, really—for the United States to send our legislators to the region.”
“In fact, my preference would have been for Congress to be deployed months ago,” she added.
Citing overwhelming support from the international community—including that of the Arab League, Turkey, and France, as well as Great Britain, Iraq, Iran, Russia, Japan, Mexico, China, and Canada, all of whom are reported to be unilaterally in favor of sending the U.S. Congress to Syria—the majority of survey respondents said they believe the United States should refocus its entire approach to Syria’s civil war on the ground deployment of U.S. senators and representatives, regardless of whether the Assad regime used chemical weapons or not.
In fact, 91 percent of those surveyed agreed that the active use of sarin gas attacks by the Syrian government would, if anything, only increase poll respondents’ desire to send Congress to Syria.
Public opinion was essentially unchanged when survey respondents were asked about a broader range of attacks, with more than 79 percent of Americans saying they would strongly support sending Congress to Syria in cases of bomb and missile attacks, 78 percent supporting intervention in cases of kidnappings and executions, and 75 percent saying representatives should be deployed in cases where government forces were found to have used torture.
When asked if they believe that Sen. Rand Paul should be deployed to Syria, 100 percent of respondents said yes.
“There’s no doubt in my mind that sending Congress to Syria—or, at the very least, sending the major congressional leaders in both parties—is the correct course of action,” survey respondent and Iraq war veteran Maj. Gen. John Mill said, noting that his opinion was informed by four tours of duty in which he saw dozens of close friends sustain physical as well as emotional injury and post-traumatic stress. “There is a clear solution to our problems staring us right in the face here, and we need to take action.”
“Sooner rather than later, too,” Mill added. “This war isn’t going to last forever.
BaronIveagh wrote: I hate to point this out, but 'not being involved' hasn't been viable or even possible since about the invention of the Telephone, and is absolutely a myth in the era of Wal-Mart and the 24 hour news network. You would be astonished the level of 'involved' that goes on in this world these days, and it all winds it's way back to big money and the corridors of power, whether in Moscow, Beijing or, Washington. I'm told, and I'm not sure I believe this, but it doesn't seem impossible, that companies in the US and Europe own 80% of the mineral right in Africa, by one means or another (the trial of Bosco Ntaganda will be quite interesting, I think, to see where all the money that financed him came from. You want to know why the US never intervened? Dollars to Krugerrands because they were financing part of the horror there).
More trite statements about things that don't really concern the topic at hand?
Yes we can not get involved. We've done it successfully elsewhere, we can do it here too. We should have stayed out of Syria, we should have kept our mouths shut, we should have just let Russia keep funding Assad, and made sure that it stayed not our problem. Instead we've painted ourselves into a corner to possibly take military action that achieves little to nothing in the short, medium, or long term. If we need to make a response lets make it humanitarian. It stops us getting embroiled in a pointless conflict, and stops us handing money over to PMCs desperate for a payday.
Easy E wrote: I think my "favorite" part of all this is listening to some Republican lawmakers talk about using the International Criminal Court in the Hague to deal with the Assad and his use of Chemical Weapons. That made my day.
Lulz in the direction from which it came aside, why is this a bad idea? Syria is a signatory, even though the US is not.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: It stops us getting embroiled in a pointless conflict, and stops us handing money over to PMCs desperate for a payday.
While it's an oversimplification, there sure is an awful big nugget of truth in there (putting aside the fact that once you sign up, you don't get to pick which wars you fight in).
I mean, it's indisputable that, lets say we take decisive action and totally remove Assad from power. Sure, that's totally, utterly not going to happen. But lets say it does - then what?
What is the actual, functional difference between supporting these guys now and supporting the Taliban back in the day? Maybe there is one, this is a legit question.
I still vacillate on this, really hard. I think since all of our options are pretty terrible, we should pick the least worst one; i.e. the one that doesn't leave us with dead Americans and millions (if not billions) of dollars spent feeding our ever-hungry war machine.
What is the actual, functional difference between supporting these guys now and supporting the Taliban back in the day? Maybe there is one, this is a legit question.
Part of the difference would stem from the fact that the rebels aren't a completely unified group. As I mentioned in a previous post, there are a ton of different FSA units, some made up primarily of Syrian Armed Forces defectors, some made up of people from various and diverse ethnic groups and religions, including Syrian Turks, Syrian Kurds, Muslims, Christians, and Druze, as well as foreign fighters from a bunch of different countries.
Theoretically, we could only support the factions that aren't Al Qaeda affiliates, which currently seem to be the majority. Of course, there is the problem that if we give weapons or support to the FSA or other FSA-affiliated militias, there's probably a good chance some of the Al Qaeda-linked groups could get their hands on some of that as well.
So yes, it is complex and I'm not saying there's an easy answer, but supporting the rebels or the FSA isn't necessarily the equivalent of fighting for Al Qaeda in a Syrian civil war.
The Taliban, on the other hand, are a much less diverse, more unified group driven by a single religion and ideology, at least when compared to the rebels in Syria.
Ouze wrote: Isn't the lack of cohesion even worse?
In the sense that we could end up inadvertently supporting groups that we don't want to if our weapons spread through multiple groups, probably yes. In the sense that we have more options in regards to who we directly support, no. There's always a risk of any weapons or support we send ending up in the wrong hands though. Even if the FSA was a completely unified body and we decided to support them and give them weapons, there would be a chance that Assad's Syrian Armed Forces could end up getting some of our weapons intended for the FSA.
The lack of cohesion means there are more factors to consider and we certainly need to be careful about it, but it doesn't necessarily mean that it would be worse. It could open up some options, as well as close others. It's probably not a straightforward better/worse comparison.
Even though we probably be supplying whatever groups that are friendly to the West. Perception is the most of the Anti Assad forces has AL and other faction not real friendly towards the West. Rebels win the war but the groups that US favors is in the minority. Wasted effort. Who can predict after removing Assad out the picture that the next group in power is more brutal then the current regime
cadbren wrote: Aside from spurious accusations of supporting Hesbollah or whoever, what has Iran actually done against the West?
Only 'spurious accusations? Seriously?
Spurious was probably the wrong word. What I meant was that the attacks of Hesbollah have not been aimed at the West so Iran's support of them or not is irrelevant.
cadbren wrote: Aside from spurious accusations of supporting Hesbollah or whoever, what has Iran actually done against the West?
Only 'spurious accusations? Seriously?
Spurious was probably the wrong word. What I meant was that the attacks of Hesbollah have not been aimed at the West so Iran's support of them or not is irrelevant.
And that statement would be wrong too. You may want to look up the 1983 bombing in Beirut which very specifically targeted US marines and French troops. That is not close to the only attack. Plenty of other bombings and kidnappings where US citizens were the targets. Some of their ops in South and Central America have targeted our interests too.
And using Hez is not the only way Iran has acted violently against US and other Western nations. Others have pointed out the Iranian provided IEDs used against US troops in Iraq, I'll also point out the Quds force troops captured and in a couple cases killed in Iraq. Of course the taking of the US Embassy in '79 wasn't exactly peaceful. There are lots of examples over the last few decades.
You may be able to argue the 'why' there have been attacks, to deny they ever occurred is willful ignorance.
More trite statements about things that don't really concern the topic at hand?
Yes we can not get involved. We've done it successfully elsewhere, we can do it here too.
Tell me where you have not been involved? I'm curious.
We should have stayed out of Syria, we should have kept our mouths shut, we should have just let Russia keep funding Assad, and made sure that it stayed not our problem.
Because silence is always a good idea when dealing with atrocity. It's worked so well throughout history. Should we add a new line about Syrians?
Martin Niemöller wrote:
First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.
Then they came for the socialists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for me,
and there was no one left to speak for me.
If you wanted to not have US involvement in Syria, you had better travel back to 1949 when the brand spanking new CIA decided it was time to dispose of the elected Syrian government and backed General Husni al-Za'im's coup d'etat. Since that's what kicked off the long chain of coups that have led directly to this.
Mmm just sent off letters to my Congressmen and Senators on this subject. Remember, when you send them things, its occasionally good to remind them of the political contributions you've made in the past.
And that statement would be wrong too. You may want to look up the 1983 bombing in Beirut which very specifically targeted US marines and French troops. That is not close to the only attack. Plenty of other bombings and kidnappings where US citizens were the targets. Some of their ops in South and Central America have targeted our interests too.
And using Hez is not the only way Iran has acted violently against US and other Western nations. Others have pointed out the Iranian provided IEDs used against US troops in Iraq, I'll also point out the Quds force troops captured and in a couple cases killed in Iraq. Of course the taking of the US Embassy in '79 wasn't exactly peaceful. There are lots of examples over the last few decades.
You may be able to argue the 'why' there have been attacks, to deny they ever occurred is willful ignorance.
Thats a bit unfair, afterall you're quoting examples from 30 years back, when Hez was at it's nadir of operations and 'popularity' There's a strong possibility that Cadbren wasn't even born at that point. I think the point that he was making that the overt attacks against western interests have waned and reverted to a more passive/aggresive 'resistance' against influences within their geographical location.
Well... the Prez is going to address the Nation next Tuesday:
OBAMA SAYS HE WILL ADDRESS NATION TUESDAY ON SYRIA
ST. PETERSBURG, Russia (AP) — President Barack Obama says he will address the nation about Syria on Tuesday as he seeks public and congressional authority for military action against the regime of Syrian President Bashar Assad.
Obama wants to strike against the Syrian regime in response to a chemical attack on civilians last month that the Obama administration says was carried out by Assad's military. Obama says failing to chemical weapons use would , quote, "send a signal to rogue nations."
Obama spoke at a news conference at the conclusion of a Group of 20 summit in Russia where Syria dominated much of the discussion.
Amid tepid support for a strike, lawmakers have called on Obama to build support with the public by making such an address
So... he's having a "speech" about this in front of the nation...
Just seems odd he’ll do it on the day before the anniversary of 9/11 and Benghazi where those questions will likely popup...
Just strange coming from someone who originally campaigning as an anti-interventionist and an internationalist...
He'll also argue that the UN is useless... (o.O)
Pres. Obama says he would prefer to work through the UN in response to Syria, but it's "paralyzed, frozen and doesn't act."
— Mark Knoller (@markknoller) September 6, 2013
Which, let's be honest... it's true.
Funny how the POTUS now has walked the same shoes as his predecessor... and he wants to wage war now... o.O
Well, so the US wan't to send a message to all "rogue nations", and to send that message they are prepared to act outside of a UN mandate... Won't that make the US a rogue nation itself?
Or have you all finally decided to go with the definition of rogue nation = one nation that doesn't do what we wan't?
And that statement would be wrong too. You may want to look up the 1983 bombing in Beirut which very specifically targeted US marines and French troops. That is not close to the only attack. Plenty of other bombings and kidnappings where US citizens were the targets. Some of their ops in South and Central America have targeted our interests too.
And using Hez is not the only way Iran has acted violently against US and other Western nations. Others have pointed out the Iranian provided IEDs used against US troops in Iraq, I'll also point out the Quds force troops captured and in a couple cases killed in Iraq. Of course the taking of the US Embassy in '79 wasn't exactly peaceful. There are lots of examples over the last few decades.
You may be able to argue the 'why' there have been attacks, to deny they ever occurred is willful ignorance.
Thats a bit unfair, afterall you're quoting examples from 30 years back, when Hez was at it's nadir of operations and 'popularity' There's a strong possibility that Cadbren wasn't even born at that point. I think the point that he was making that the overt attacks against western interests have waned and reverted to a more passive/aggresive 'resistance' against influences within their geographical location.
Cheers
Andrew
Not unfair at all, I don't give a crap when he was born. Plenty of available sources giving the history out there, and Iran and their proxies definitely know the history and embrace it. The attacks in Iraq and Afghanistan are not close to 30 years old, neither are many of the activities in Central and South America. Nor is the plot bomb embassies in DC in 2011. Nor is the plot the Thais stopped in Bangkok. Nor the 2012 operations broken up in Azerbaijan. The point is Iran, either directly or through proxies, is very much engaged in aggressive plots against Western interests. And has been for decades.
Let's review options for the Obama administration.
#1: Ignore the problem and allow Assad go kill his own people with impunity. The main risk is Assad may engage in larger scale sarin gas attacks against his own people. Choosing this option will be unpopular with many Americans.
#2: Bomb Assad hard enough to get his attention, but not hard enough for him to lose the war. Then allow Syrians to kill each other as much as they want as long as they don't use sarin gas. The main risk is it would look stupid and ineffective to the American people. Choosing this option will be unpopular with many Americans.
#3: Bomb Assad's military forces to the point that the Al Qaeda backed rebels win the war and gain control over Assad's remaining chemical weapon stockpile and production capabilities. Choosing this option will be unpopular with many Americans, and would turn a bad situation into an absolute clusterfeth.
#4: Invade Syria with boots on the ground so that neither Assad or the Al Qaeda backed rebels have chemical weapons. Choosing this option will be unpopular with many Americans, and would result in an insurgency that would be about as bad as Iraq which would probably cost America as many lives, years, and dollars as the Iraq war.
Looks like a no win situation to me with options 1 and 2 being a less terrible than 3 and 4. Now lets review Obama's political options.
Option A: Kick the decision to congress and allow them to share the blame for the negative outcome of whatever decision is made.
Option B: Kick the decision to congress and allow them to share the blame for the negative outcome of whatever decision is made.
Option C: Kick the decision to congress and allow them to share the blame for the negative outcome of whatever decision is made.
Option D: Kick the decision to congress and allow them to share the blame for the negative outcome of whatever decision is made.
#1: Ignore the problem and allow Assad go kill his own people with impunity. The main risk is Assad may engage in larger scale sarin gas attacks against his own people. Choosing this option will be unpopular with many Americans.
I've been out of the news loop for the past couple of days, so this is a genuine question: has there been any proof that it was actually government forces that perpetrated the gas attack in this instance?
Last I heard some reporter was saying that this attack could have been the work of the rebels mishandling their own stockpiles?
#1: Ignore the problem and allow Assad go kill his own people with impunity. The main risk is Assad may engage in larger scale sarin gas attacks against his own people. Choosing this option will be unpopular with many Americans.
I've been out of the news loop for the past couple of days, so this is a genuine question: has there been any proof that it was actually government forces that perpetrated the gas attack in this instance?
Last I heard some reporter was saying that this attack could have been the work of the rebels mishandling their own stockpiles?
The Obama Administration claims to have proof that it was the Assad Government forces launching the attacks.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Relapse wrote: With everything going on, this has started making the rounds:
#1: Ignore the problem and allow Assad go kill his own people with impunity. The main risk is Assad may engage in larger scale sarin gas attacks against his own people. Choosing this option will be unpopular with many Americans.
I've been out of the news loop for the past couple of days, so this is a genuine question: has there been any proof that it was actually government forces that perpetrated the gas attack in this instance?
Last I heard some reporter was saying that this attack could have been the work of the rebels mishandling their own stockpiles?
Both possibilities are possible, but from what I have read the intelligence community is leaning towards Assad's forces using the weapons. Either way it doesn't make much of a difference after we vote no on the use of military force. The net result is the same=Assad will know that he could use sarin on his people if he feels the need. I don't see any way of sugar coating the 4 options I laid out or making any of them better, it's just a matter of choosing the least bad option and accepting it in all it's ugliness.
At this rate, Assad's forces will have won the war! When FDR took office, there was a famous cartoon about the galloping snail of congress getting pushed into action. Well, Obama has given American politics the constipated snail!
Still, the old Obama magic is still there. he was smoothing up to Ms Merkel at the G20! Still waiting for Putin charging in on his white horse!
Easy E wrote: I think my "favorite" part of all this is listening to some Republican lawmakers talk about using the International Criminal Court in the Hague to deal with the Assad and his use of Chemical Weapons. That made my day.
Lulz in the direction from which it came aside, why is this a bad idea? Syria is a signatory, even though the US is not.
I don't thinkit is a bad idea at all. It's just funny to hear Conservatives/Republicans say it.
I recall when the Bush Doctrine would have allowed us to invade Syria unilaterally by now. After all they have demonstrated that they have WMD and could provide them to Hezbollah and Hamas. Therefore, we could invoke the Bush Doctrine and attack right?
Easy E wrote: I think my "favorite" part of all this is listening to some Republican lawmakers talk about using the International Criminal Court in the Hague to deal with the Assad and his use of Chemical Weapons. That made my day.
Lulz in the direction from which it came aside, why is this a bad idea? Syria is a signatory, even though the US is not.
I don;t thinkit is a bad idea at all. It's just funny to hear Conservatives/Republicans say it.
I recall when the Bush Doctrine would have allowed us to invade Syria unilaterally by now. After all they have demonstrated that they have WMD and could provide them to Hezbollah and Hamas. Therefore, we could invoke the Bush Doctrine and attack right?
The Bush Doctrine is law per se... it's a series of policies for Bush's administration.
Having said that... yeah, it would fit. I fact, I'd take it a step further... the Colin Powell Doctrine... “if you break it, you own it”.
[qoute]1.Is a vital national security interest threatened?
2.Do we have a clear attainable objective?
3.Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed?
4.Have all other non-violent policy means been fully exhausted?
5.Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement?
6.Have the consequences of our action been fully considered?
7.Is the action supported by the American people?
8.Do we have genuine broad international support?
Fraz, I'm shocked that you aren;t concenred about how Iran will see our "Red Line" failure as an instigation to attack Isreal!
Its the US restraining Israel. I'm pretty sure Israel with its 200+ nukes can take care of itself.
Now if I were Israel, I'd state that it is now a matter of state policy that attacks launched from Lebanon or Syria will now be considered attacks launched from Iran, and that Israel will react accordingly.
[qoute]1.Is a vital national security interest threatened?
2.Do we have a clear attainable objective?
3.Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed?
4.Have all other non-violent policy means been fully exhausted?
5.Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement?
6.Have the consequences of our action been fully considered?
7.Is the action supported by the American people?
8.Do we have genuine broad international support?
No too all those questions
What are we talking about here - Syria? Or Vietnam? The parallels are eerie!
Fraz, I'm shocked that you aren;t concenred about how Iran will see our "Red Line" failure as an instigation to attack Isreal!
Its the US restraining Israel. I'm pretty sure Israel with its 200+ nukes can take care of itself.
Now if I were Israel, I'd state that it is now a matter of state policy that attacks launched from Lebanon or Syria will now be considered attacks launched from Iran, and that Israel will react accordingly.
The Middle East pretty much ruined the British Empire, I can't believe the USA would make the same mistakes and get itself bogged down there, all the while, the real enemy, Switzerland, is taking over the world!
[qoute]1.Is a vital national security interest threatened?
2.Do we have a clear attainable objective?
3.Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed?
4.Have all other non-violent policy means been fully exhausted?
5.Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement?
6.Have the consequences of our action been fully considered?
7.Is the action supported by the American people?
8.Do we have genuine broad international support?
The Bush Doctrine apparently trumped the Powell Doctrine in Iraq.
P.S. I know these doctrines aren't laws, they are guiding principles.
The net result is the same=Assad will know that he could use sarin on his people if he feels the need.
And?
I kind of feel the same. I really don't shed any tears over the thought of Al Quaeda terrorists getting gassed or the thought they might not win and not get their hands on the stuff or it's manufacturing facilities.
The net result is the same=Assad will know that he could use sarin on his people if he feels the need.
And?
I kind of feel the same. I really don't shed any tears over the thought of Al Quaeda terrorists getting gassed or the thought they might not win and not get their hands on the stuff or it's manufacturing facilities.
It's not as simple as that. The Al Qaeda terrorists are using a helpless population of civilians to hide in and as human shields. The last use of sarin gas ended up taking out hundreds of non combatant civilians in order to kill dozens of terrorists. It also makes the assumption that it's a strait Assad versus Al Qaeda fight and eliminates the possibility the situation is really a complex clusterfrak of sectarian violence where Assad isn't using the war as an excuse to engage in ethnic cleansing.
I stand by my original position that every option we have is a bad option with terrible consequences, but not getting involved is the least bad of our bad options. My opinion is it's better to stand next to a stinking pile of bs than to stand in it, and standing in it is better than falling face first into it. That being said too many people are trying to say a steaming pill of bs smells like roses.
BaronIveagh wrote: Tell me where you have not been involved? I'm curious.
I'm Irish, we've sorta kept our neutrality this past wee while. But please don't let that stop you trying to find some obscure example to prove your point, whatever that may be.
Because silence is always a good idea when dealing with atrocity. It's worked so well throughout history. Should we add a new line about Syrians?
Martin Niemöller wrote:trite poem removed
So if we don't start military action in Syria the next step will be Assad/Al-Queda/FSA on US soil engaging in genocide because we didn't speak out? Or are you falling back on hyperbole and false comparisons yet again to attempt to illicit a response through emotional blackmail. Actually I think we all know the answer to that.
BaronIveagh wrote: If you wanted to not have US involvement in Syria, you had better travel back to 1949 when the brand spanking new CIA decided it was time to dispose of the elected Syrian government and backed General Husni al-Za'im's coup d'etat. Since that's what kicked off the long chain of coups that have led directly to this.
Yes, because clearly we can time travel and undo the past mistakes. Or better yet, lets blunder ahead and make brand new ones. Those events happened 64 years ago, so unless you think that the Syrians are incapable of making their own decisions then we stopped being responsible a long time ago.
Unless of course you want to go back even further and blame the British for losing the War of Independence that created the US. Or how about the Normans after they invaded England? Is that far enough back?
But don't let that stop you advocating for the UN (y'know that body where Russia has veto power) for endorse your alleged mercenary profession just so that you can make a quick buck, while mounted on your moral high horse and pretending that you're doing this for the sake of those suffering.
Frazzled wrote: We're on a different continent. We can stand far far away from it.
Meh if the Nazis didn't' declare war on us and left us alone the same logic could be applied to the holocaust. I think we're mostly on the same page. It's sad that it's easier to sell war than peace. Let's go over options and selling points of peace.
#1: Don't intervene and allow Assad go kill his own people with impunity. The main risk is Assad may engage in larger scale sarin gas attacks against his own people. Choosing this option will be unpopular with many Americans and cause a terrible loss of Syrian life.
#2: Bomb Assad hard enough to get his attention, but not hard enough for him to lose the war. Then allow Syrians to kill each other as much as they want as long as they don't use sarin gas. The main risk is it would look stupid and ineffective to the American people. Choosing this option will be unpopular with many Americans and cause a terrible loss of Syrian life. Also by protracting the war the total loss of Syrian life will probably be greater than option #1.
#3: Bomb Assad's military forces to the point that the Al Qaeda backed rebels win the war and gain control over Assad's remaining chemical weapon stockpile and production capabilities. Choosing this option will be unpopular with many Americans, will cause a terrible loss of Syrian life, and would turn a bad situation into an absolute clusterfeth. The principle concept of Vae Victus still applies to whatever side loses the Syrian civil war, so we can rely on Al Qaeda to be as merciful in victory as Assad's forces. The loss of Syrian life won't be any lessened by option 3, and Al Qaeda controlling a large sarin gas supply will probably provoke another war.
#4: Invade Syria with boots on the ground so that neither Assad or the Al Qaeda backed rebels have chemical weapons. Choosing this option will be unpopular with many Americans, cause a terrible loss of Syrian life, and would result in an insurgency that would be about as bad as Iraq which would probably cost America as many lives, years, and dollars as the Iraq war.
Acting unsympathetic towards a terrible loss of Syrian life isn't a good way to sell peace. It might piss people off, and it invites people to make the argument an emotional one instead of a logical one. There is no way to win an emotional arguement, and engaging in one when the logical argument strongly favors a non interventionist policy isn't a good way to promote us remaining uninvolved.
Meh if the Nazis didn't' declare war on us and left us alone the same logic could be applied to the holocaust.
Your homework for this weekend will be to write the next phrase 1000 times:
"WW2 wasn't fought because of the holocaust."
Which was duly noted when I started off with the fact Germany declared war with us and attacked us first (In the form of the Atlantic turkey shoot)
The point still stands, and there is a good chance the 3rd Reich would still be around today if they didn't declare war on the US and attack Atlantic shipping.
And one of the German assassination plots against Hitler worked.
The point you missed is being indifferent to war crimes committed in a far away location is easily attacked. Why are so many people that are essentially agreeing with me sniping 1 comment out of a long post and attempting to make a mountain out of a molehill?
I'm Irish, we've sorta kept our neutrality this past wee while. But please don't let that stop you trying to find some obscure example to prove your point, whatever that may be.
Well, officially, yes, Éire is neutral. But brother, does Éire provide troops for everyone else. I don't know if you've noticed this throughout history, but when Irishmen are not killing each other, they're selling out their services to someone else, be it Ole Boney or Uncle Sam. Last I heard, and I got this from someone who may have plucked the number out of the air, so grain of salt, but I was told this: there are still around 10k Irishmen sitting around Iraq as pmcs. Further, both England and the US deployed units that are still largely Irish there. (as none of the following are signatory to the UN Mercenary Convention: USA, UK, and Ireland. or Iraq, for that matter. Further, for real hilarity, the US still reserves the right to issue Letters of Marque [as Ron Paul pointed out])
Or are you falling back on hyperbole and false comparisons yet again to attempt to illicit a response through emotional blackmail.
It's not hyperbole when it's true. Your position was exactly the average German's view at the time. You can call me out for saying 'Let's stop the bastards and get paid doing it' but let's not pretend you have the moral high ground when your position is basically 'Who cares about murdering women and children horribly? It's not like it's happening to anyone *I* care about." You might think my horse is high, but it's really just a matter of perspective.
I know Republicans like to talk about 'Saint Reagan'. Let me bring you a speaker that the left beatified:
"To those new States whom we welcome to the ranks of the free, we pledge our word that one form of colonial control shall not have passed away merely to be replaced by a far more iron tyranny. We shall not always expect to find them supporting our view. But we shall always hope to find them strongly supporting their own freedom--and to remember that, in the past, those who foolishly sought power by riding the back of the tiger ended up inside." - John F Kennedy.
Wait the U.S. can still issue letters of marque? What office in D.C. do I go to for that? Because frankly to hell with this nonsense, I'm stealing a destroyer out of the mothball fleet and going a piratin!
KalashnikovMarine wrote: Wait the U.S. can still issue letters of marque? What office in D.C. do I go to for that? Because frankly to hell with this nonsense, I'm stealing a destroyer out of the mothball fleet and going a piratin!
Amusingly, Ron Paul has entered a bill TWICE to allow you to do just that (getting one, not stealing the destroyer, and it'd probably be cheaper to buy it than steal it), against Terrorists. So far it's never made it out of committee, but yes, according to the Constitution, Congress reserves the right to issue Letters of Marque and this has never been rescinded, the US refusing to enter into any of the compacts or treaties banning it.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: Wait the U.S. can still issue letters of marque? What office in D.C. do I go to for that? Because frankly to hell with this nonsense, I'm stealing a destroyer out of the mothball fleet and going a piratin!
So what kind would you be? The lacy gentlemanly type or the grimy kill em all type?
KalashnikovMarine wrote: Wait the U.S. can still issue letters of marque? What office in D.C. do I go to for that? Because frankly to hell with this nonsense, I'm stealing a destroyer out of the mothball fleet and going a piratin!
Ah, Comrade Putin's real concern becomes revealed. Apparently the Russians in their infinite wisdom provided Syria with nuclear technology, including but not limited to, their own breeder reactor outside Damascus.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: Wait the U.S. can still issue letters of marque? What office in D.C. do I go to for that? Because frankly to hell with this nonsense, I'm stealing a destroyer out of the mothball fleet and going a piratin!
And there's the whembly "make it about Benghazi!" post I've been waiting for...
What? Should I not care about my fellow American's death?
No, but you should be happy the bozo in the white house only killed 4 Americans with his incompetence instead of 4,500 like like the last bozo in the white house did. Four dead Americans is no cause for celibration, but it's a move in the right direction.
IRS Scandal is a bit dead in the water with Holder/DoJ saying there be no investigation. NSA still doing their thing. I do want to make a reply to the 4500 being killed. They were military. Its one of the things we take a chance on in joining the military. A diplomat and security guards are not combat troops. They are not paid to engage the enemy. You can scream and holler about how Bush is responsible for the combat deaths and what not but did you forget the "Surge" that Obama signed off on in Afghanistan? If your going to, in your mind, put Bush on trial with a guilty verdict then you need to throw Obama himself on there to. Before you go screaming how Bush lied to Congress to get their go ahead for Iraq/OIF. He showed the same evidence he was looking at to Congress. Same as Obama doing now with military Action with Syria.
Jihadin wrote: IRS Scandal is a bit dead in the water with Holder/DoJ saying there be no investigation. NSA still doing their thing. I do want to make a reply to the 4500 being killed. They were military. Its one of the things we take a chance on in joining the military. A diplomat and security guards are not combat troops. They are not paid to engage the enemy. You can scream and holler about how Bush is responsible for the combat deaths and what not but did you forget the "Surge" that Obama signed off on in Afghanistan? If your going to, in your mind, put Bush on trial with a guilty verdict then you need to throw Obama himself on there to. Before you go screaming how Bush lied to Congress to get their go ahead for Iraq/OIF. He showed the same evidence he was looking at to Congress. Same as Obama doing now with military Action with Syria.
Yep, and back in the 90's after Desert Storm, Saddam was killing Kurds by the village load with nerve gas. It made for a plausible WMD argument when Bush Jr went into Iraq.
As was mention before. If we do put "Boots on Ground" (I'm retired) and we find out some of those WMD's were from Iraq. Best put the USS Lincoln and the USS Reagan side by side for one massive BBQ paid for by Bush. All this time we spent looking in the wrong desert. If we do put boots on ground in Syria. All that equipment we left behind in Iraq we might be able to get back. Generators alone can pretty much power ten divisions and a couple major airfields....
cadbren wrote: Aside from spurious accusations of supporting Hesbollah or whoever, what has Iran actually done against the West?
Only 'spurious accusations? Seriously?
Spurious was probably the wrong word. What I meant was that the attacks of Hesbollah have not been aimed at the West so Iran's support of them or not is irrelevant.
And that statement would be wrong too. You may want to look up the 1983 bombing in Beirut which very specifically targeted US marines and French troops. .
As Beirut is in the Middle East and not the West that is not a valid rebuttal. Israel is not a Western nation, the Arab-Israeli wars are a middle eastern conflict, go consult an atlas if you don't believe me. Constant meddling in those affairs led to 911, and despite the mostly Saudi involvement, little was ever done in regards Saudi Arabia.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jihadin wrote: As was mention before. If we do put "Boots on Ground" (I'm retired) and we find out some of those WMD's were from Iraq. Best put the USS Lincoln and the USS Reagan side by side for one massive BBQ paid for by Bush. All this time we spent looking in the wrong desert. If we do put boots on ground in Syria. All that equipment we left behind in Iraq we might be able to get back. Generators alone can pretty much power ten divisions and a couple major airfields....
And if you cause the overthrow of the current regime, find no WMDs, end up helping a radical islamic group get into power, then what? We know what. You'll say, "Gee shucks, guess we goofed there, hyuk hyuk, but we still did the right thing."
Meanwhile Afghani translators and their families have been allowed into my country because despite the "successful" mission there, these guys wont be safe once our forces leave. I believe similar arrangements have been made for Afghanis who cooperated with US and other coalition forces.
Jihadin wrote: IRS Scandal is a bit dead in the water with Holder/DoJ saying there be no investigation. NSA still doing their thing. I do want to make a reply to the 4500 being killed. They were military. Its one of the things we take a chance on in joining the military. A diplomat and security guards are not combat troops. They are not paid to engage the enemy. You can scream and holler about how Bush is responsible for the combat deaths and what not but did you forget the "Surge" that Obama signed off on in Afghanistan? If your going to, in your mind, put Bush on trial with a guilty verdict then you need to throw Obama himself on there to. Before you go screaming how Bush lied to Congress to get their go ahead for Iraq/OIF. He showed the same evidence he was looking at to Congress. Same as Obama doing now with military Action with Syria.
Yep, and back in the 90's after Desert Storm, Saddam was killing Kurds by the village load with nerve gas. It made for a plausible WMD argument when Bush Jr went into Iraq.
No, Saddam gassed the Kurds in the 1980s and the world looked on and did nothing.
Even after Desert Storm when they could have gone in and ousted Saddam and arrested him for gassing the Kurds they didn't.
It wasn't until after the 2003 invasion that Saddam was suddenly found to be a war criminal and put on trial for gassing the Kurds and that was only done to destroy the regime.
Jihadin wrote: IRS Scandal is a bit dead in the water with Holder/DoJ saying there be no investigation. NSA still doing their thing. I do want to make a reply to the 4500 being killed. They were military. Its one of the things we take a chance on in joining the military. A diplomat and security guards are not combat troops. They are not paid to engage the enemy. You can scream and holler about how Bush is responsible for the combat deaths and what not but did you forget the "Surge" that Obama signed off on in Afghanistan? If your going to, in your mind, put Bush on trial with a guilty verdict then you need to throw Obama himself on there to. Before you go screaming how Bush lied to Congress to get their go ahead for Iraq/OIF. He showed the same evidence he was looking at to Congress. Same as Obama doing now with military Action with Syria.
Yep, and back in the 90's after Desert Storm, Saddam was killing Kurds by the village load with nerve gas. It made for a plausible WMD argument when Bush Jr went into Iraq.
On comparing the 4 deaths in Libya versus the Iraq war 51,139 casualties 4,805 of which were deaths.
A) Numbers speak volumes which makes bush over 10,000% better at killing Americans through incompetence than Obama
B) The 4 casualties in Libya knew what they were getting into just as much as the 51,139 casualties in Iraq knew what they were getting into
C) The incompetence of Bush in Iraq was plunging the nation into an unnecessary land war that did nothing to improve national security.
D) The incompetence of Obama in Libya was a failed to attempt to obfuscate and spin what happened in Libya. I don't fault him in failing to commit the US military into a strike without congressional approval when the ambassador was under attack and Libyan authorities were unsuccessfully attempting to regain control on the situation. I don't believe the US should bomb Syria, I think the Iraq war was a mistake, and I don't think we should have invaded Libyan air space to level part of Benghazi with air power in an effort that might have saved our ambassador.
I really dislike Obama's domestic policies, left of center agenda, failure to close GITMO, successful assaults on the 4th amendment, killing of entire families with drone strikes, killing 2 American citizens with drone strikes, or his plans to continue the Clinton doctrine with Syria. Obama is a bad president, but GW Bush was the worst president we had in 100 years who was only good at bsing congress in a post 9/11 political environment. There were no WMD in Iraq when we invaded because sanctions worked, weapons inspectors worked, and because even with a binary weapon system the shelf life of the primary component in a binary Sarin weapons system is only 5 years.
Last but not least I find it terrible inconsistent to support the Iraq war because it's a mad regime that might have WMD there and not support a full ground invasion of Syria when there is a mad regime that definitely has WMD. If your consistent and didn't support either war that's a good thing. If don't want a war in Syria because you matured and learned a lesson form the Iraq war that's a good thing, and not at all inconsistent. if you supported the Iraq war at the time but have concluded in hindsight that it was a bad idea that's also a good thing. If you still to this day support the Iraq war then you've lost all credibility in criticizing Obama's war and should go sit at the kids table while the adults talk.
I'm Irish, we've sorta kept our neutrality this past wee while. But please don't let that stop you trying to find some obscure example to prove your point, whatever that may be.
Well, officially, yes, Éire is neutral. But brother, does Éire provide troops for everyone else. I don't know if you've noticed this throughout history, but when Irishmen are not killing each other, they're selling out their services to someone else, be it Ole Boney or Uncle Sam. Last I heard, and I got this from someone who may have plucked the number out of the air, so grain of salt, but I was told this: there are still around 10k Irishmen sitting around Iraq as pmcs. Further, both England and the US deployed units that are still largely Irish there. (as none of the following are signatory to the UN Mercenary Convention: USA, UK, and Ireland. or Iraq, for that matter. Further, for real hilarity, the US still reserves the right to issue Letters of Marque [as Ron Paul pointed out])
Thank you for doing pretty much what I said I would do. Now you're trying to use the actions of individuals as an indication of the country at large. Those "largely Irish" units, now were they made up of straight off the boat Irish, or people who had been in the US for at least a generation? Either way - again, those are the actions of individuals, not the actions of the country.
Oh, and I'd love to see a source for that 10K of Irish mercs in Iraq please. It's just that seeing as the population of Ireland is 4.5 million that seems a wee bit high to me
BaronIveagh wrote: It's not hyperbole when it's true. Your position was exactly the average German's view at the time. You can call me out for saying 'Let's stop the bastards and get paid doing it' but let's not pretend you have the moral high ground when your position is basically 'Who cares about murdering women and children horribly? It's not like it's happening to anyone *I* care about." You might think my horse is high, but it's really just a matter of perspective.
I know Republicans like to talk about 'Saint Reagan'. Let me bring you a speaker that the left beatified:
"To those new States whom we welcome to the ranks of the free, we pledge our word that one form of colonial control shall not have passed away merely to be replaced by a far more iron tyranny. We shall not always expect to find them supporting our view. But we shall always hope to find them strongly supporting their own freedom--and to remember that, in the past, those who foolishly sought power by riding the back of the tiger ended up inside." - John F Kennedy.
My position is basically - we are not the world police, and any intervention should have measured, effective and specific goals that enhance our own security. Jumping into the middle of a three way shooting war with plenty of outside players does none of the above. But thank you of attempting (poorly I may add) to vilify me because I object to handing over Danegeld to mercenaries.
Seeing as you like quotes here's one for you that is related to the subject at hand;
Machiavelli wrote:How Many Kinds Of Soldiery There Are, And Concerning Mercenaries
HAVING discoursed particularly on the characteristics of such principalities as in the beginning I proposed to discuss, and having considered in some degree the causes of their being good or bad, and having shown the methods by which many have sought to acquire them and to hold them, it now remains for me to discuss generally the means of offence and defence which belong to each of them.
We have seen above how necessary it is for a prince to have his foundations well laid, otherwise it follows of necessity he will go to ruin. The chief foundations of all states, new as well as old or composite, are good laws and good arms; and as there cannot be good laws where the state is not well armed, it follows that where they are well armed they have good laws. I shall leave the laws out of the discussion and shall speak of the arms.
I say, therefore, that the arms with which a prince defends his state are either his own, or they are mercenaries, auxiliaries, or mixed. Mercenaries and auxiliaries are useless and dangerous; and if one holds his state based on these arms, he will stand neither firm nor safe; for they are disunited, ambitious and without discipline, unfaithful, valiant before friends, cowardly before enemies; they have neither the fear of God nor fidelity to men, and destruction is deferred only so long as the attack is; for in peace one is robbed by them, and in war by the enemy. The fact is, they have no other attraction or reason for keeping the field than a trifle of stipend, which is not sufficient to make them willing to die for you. They are ready enough to be your soldiers whilst you do not make war, but if war comes they take themselves off or run from the foe; which I should have little trouble to prove, for the ruin of Italy has been caused by nothing else than by resting all her hopes for many years on mercenaries, and although they formerly made some display and appeared valiant amongst themselves, yet when the foreigners came they showed what they were. Thus it was that Charles, King of France, was allowed to seize Italy with chalk in hand; 1 and he who told us that our sins were the cause of it told the truth, but they were not the sins he imagined, but those which I have related. And as they were the sins of princes, it is the princes who have also suffered the penalty.
I wish to demonstrate further the infelicity of these arms. The mercenary captains are either capable men or they are not; if they are, you cannot trust them, because they always aspire to their own greatness, either by oppressing you, who are their master, or others contrary to your intentions; but if the captain is not skilful, you are ruined in the usual way.
And if it be urged that whoever is armed will act in the same way, whether mercenary or not, I reply that when arms have to be resorted to, either by a prince or a republic, then the prince ought to go in person and perform the duty of captain; the republic has to send its citizens, and when one is sent who does not turn out satisfactorily, it ought to recall him, and when one is worthy, to hold him by the laws so that he does not leave the command. And experience has shown princes and republics, single-handed, making the greatest progress, and mercenaries doing nothing except damage; and it is more difficult to bring a republic, armed with its own arms, under the sway of one of its citizens than it is to bring one armed with foreign arms. Rome and Sparta stood for many ages armed and free. The Switzers are completely armed and quite free.
Of ancient mercenaries, for example, there are the Carthaginians, who were oppressed by their mercenary soldiers after the first war with the Romans, although the Carthaginians had their own citizens for captains. After the death of Epaminondas, Philip of Macedon was made captain of their soldiers by the Thebans, and after victory he took away their liberty.
Duke Filippo being dead, the Milanese enlisted Francesco Sforza against the Venetians, and he, having overcome the enemy at Caravaggio, allied himself with them to crush the Milanese, his masters. His father, Sforza, having been engaged by Queen Johanna of Naples, left her unprotected, so that she was forced to throw herself into the arms of the King of Aragon, in order to save her kingdom. And if the Venetians and Florentines formerly extended their dominions by these arms, and yet their captains did not make themselves princes, but have defended them, I reply that the Florentines in this case have been favoured by chance, for of the able captains, of whom they might have stood in fear, some have not conquered, some have been opposed, and others have turned their ambitions elsewhere. One who did not conquer was Giovanni Acuto, 2 and since he did not conquer his fidelity cannot be proved; but every one will acknowledge that, had he conquered, the Florentines would have stood at his discretion. Sforza had the Bracceschi always against him, so they watched each other. Francesco turned his ambition to Lombardy; Braccio against the Church and the kingdom of Naples. But let us come to that which happened a short while ago. The Florentines appointed as their captain Paolo Vitelli, a most prudent man, who from a private position had risen to the greatest renown. If this man had taken Pisa, nobody can deny that it would have been proper for the Florentines to keep in with him, for if he became the soldier of their enemies they had no means of resisting, and if they held to him they must obey him. The Venetians, if their achievements are considered, will be seen to have acted safely and gloriously so long as they sent to war their own men, when with armed gentlemen and plebeians they did valiantly. This was before they turned to enterprises on land, but when they began to fight on land they forsook this virtue and followed the custom of Italy. And in the beginning of their expansion on land, through not having much territory, and because of their great reputation, they had not much to fear from their captains; but when they expanded, as under Carmignola, they had a taste of this mistake; for, having found him a most valiant man (they beat the Duke of Milan under his leadership), and, on the other hand, knowing how lukewarm he was in the war, they feared they would no longer conquer under him, and for this reason they were not willing, nor were they able, to let him go; and so, not to lose again that which they had acquired, they were compelled, in order to secure themselves, to murder him. They had afterwards for their captains Bartolomeo da Bergamo, Roberto da San Severino, the Count of Pitigliano, and the like, under whom they had to dread loss and not gain, as happened afterwards at Vaila, where in one battle they lost that which in eight hundred years they had acquired with so much trouble. Because from such arms conquests come but slowly, long delayed and inconsiderable, but the losses sudden and portentous.
And as with these examples I have reached Italy, which has been ruled for many years by mercenaries, I wish to discuss them more seriously, in order that, having seen their rise and progress, one may be better prepared to counteract them. You must understand that the empire has recently come to be repudiated in Italy, that the Pope has acquired more temporal power, and that Italy has been divided up into more states, for the reason that many of the great cities took up arms against their nobles, who, formerly favoured by the emperor, were oppressing them, whilst the Church was favouring them so as to gain authority in temporal power: in many others their citizens became princes. From this it came to pass that Italy fell partly into the hands of the Church and of republics, and, the Church consisting of priests and the republic of citizens unaccustomed to arms, both commenced to enlist foreigners.
The first who gave renown to this soldiery was Alberigo da Conio, a native of the Romagna. From the school of this man sprang, among others, Braccio and Sforza, who in their time were the arbiters of Italy. After these came all the other captains who till now have directed the arms of Italy; and the end of all their valour has been, that she has been overrun by Charles, robbed by Louis, ravaged by Ferdinand, and insulted by the Switzers. The principle that has guided them has been, first, to lower the credit of infantry so that they might increase their own. They did this because, subsisting on their pay and without territory, they were unable to support many soldiers, and a few infantry did not give them any authority; so they were led to employ cavalry, with a moderate force of which they were maintained and honoured; and affairs were brought to such a pass that, in an army of twenty thousand soldiers, there were not to be found two thousand foot soldiers. They had, besides this, used every art to lessen fatigue and danger to themselves and their soldiers, not killing in the fray, but taking prisoners and liberating without ransom. They did not attack towns at night, nor did the garrisons of the towns attack encampments at night; they did not surround the camp either with stockade or ditch, nor did they campaign in the winter. All these things were permitted by their military rules, and devised by them to avoid, as I have said, both fatigue and dangers; thus they have brought Italy to slavery and contempt.
The problem is that it isn't true. It is another false comparison as you scramble for the moral high ground and attempt to Godwin the thread yet again because it makes for nice sound bites. We aren't facing an enemy that is committing genocide in an industrial scale, we're dealing with a civil war. Cute Kennedy quote also, sadly irrelevant though as Syria is not under colonial control. It isn't throwing off colonial shackles. It is engaged in a dirty civil war which, again, has no stand out candidates to back. We'll probably lob a few cruise missiles weeks after the alleged gas attack and the civil war will continue.
cadbren wrote: Aside from spurious accusations of supporting Hesbollah or whoever, what has Iran actually done against the West?
Only 'spurious accusations? Seriously?
Spurious was probably the wrong word. What I meant was that the attacks of Hesbollah have not been aimed at the West so Iran's support of them or not is irrelevant.
And that statement would be wrong too. You may want to look up the 1983 bombing in Beirut which very specifically targeted US marines and French troops. .
As Beirut is in the Middle East and not the West that is not a valid rebuttal. Israel is not a Western nation, the Arab-Israeli wars are a middle eastern conflict, go consult an atlas if you don't believe me. Constant meddling in those affairs led to 911, and despite the mostly Saudi involvement, little was ever done in regards Saudi Arabia.
Seriously? Specifically targeting US and French troops is NOT an attack on western interests? You are obviously intent on being obtuse. I gave plenty of examples of how Iran, both directly and through proxies, has attacked western interests over the last few decades and continues to do so. Ignoring actual events is something you can choose to do, I sure can't stop you from doing so.
Jihadin wrote: IRS Scandal is a bit dead in the water with Holder/DoJ saying there be no investigation. NSA still doing their thing. I do want to make a reply to the 4500 being killed. They were military. Its one of the things we take a chance on in joining the military. A diplomat and security guards are not combat troops. They are not paid to engage the enemy. You can scream and holler about how Bush is responsible for the combat deaths and what not but did you forget the "Surge" that Obama signed off on in Afghanistan? If your going to, in your mind, put Bush on trial with a guilty verdict then you need to throw Obama himself on there to. Before you go screaming how Bush lied to Congress to get their go ahead for Iraq/OIF. He showed the same evidence he was looking at to Congress. Same as Obama doing now with military Action with Syria.
Yep, and back in the 90's after Desert Storm, Saddam was killing Kurds by the village load with nerve gas. It made for a plausible WMD argument when Bush Jr went into Iraq.
On comparing the 4 deaths in Libya versus the Iraq war 51,139 casualties 4,805 of which were deaths.
A) Numbers speak volumes which makes bush over 10,000% better at killing Americans through incompetence than Obama
B) The 4 casualties in Libya knew what they were getting into just as much as the 51,139 casualties in Iraq knew what they were getting into
C) The incompetence of Bush in Iraq was plunging the nation into an unnecessary land war that did nothing to improve national security.
D) The incompetence of Obama in Libya was a failed to attempt to obfuscate and spin what happened in Libya. I don't fault him in failing to commit the US military into a strike without congressional approval when the ambassador was under attack and Libyan authorities were unsuccessfully attempting to regain control on the situation. I don't believe the US should bomb Syria, I think the Iraq war was a mistake, and I don't think we should have invaded Libyan air space to level part of Benghazi with air power in an effort that might have saved our ambassador.
I really dislike Obama's domestic policies, left of center agenda, failure to close GITMO, successful assaults on the 4th amendment, killing of entire families with drone strikes, killing 2 American citizens with drone strikes, or his plans to continue the Clinton doctrine with Syria. Obama is a bad president, but GW Bush was the worst president we had in 100 years who was only good at bsing congress in a post 9/11 political environment. There were no WMD in Iraq when we invaded because sanctions worked, weapons inspectors worked, and because even with a binary weapon system the shelf life of the primary component in a binary Sarin weapons system is only 5 years.
O
Last but not least I find it terrible inconsistent to support the Iraq war because it's a mad regime that might have WMD there and not support a full ground invasion of Syria when there is a mad regime that definitely has WMD. If your consistent and didn't support either war that's a good thing. If don't want a war in Syria because you matured and learned a lesson form the Iraq war that's a good thing, and not at all inconsistent. if you supported the Iraq war at the time but have concluded in hindsight that it was a bad idea that's also a good thing. If you still to this day support the Iraq war then you've lost all credibility in criticizing Obama'so war and should go sit at the kids table while the adults talk.
I think you misunderstand or are in argument and insult mode with everyone whether they support Obama going in or not. Here's a little tip, telling people to sit down at the kids table shuts them off to anything you have further to say because you obviously aren't bothering to think about what their point is. I have provided examples and links about how this is just more of history repeating itself, starting with Clinton's efforts to "degrade" Iraq's chemical weapons manufacturing with missle and bombing attacks in the 90's and how it compares to present time.
You clearly havn't read any of my posts since you take off on a rant against me.
The problem is that it isn't true. It is another false comparison as you scramble for the moral high ground and attempt to Godwin the thread yet again because it makes for nice sound bites. We aren't facing an enemy that is committing genocide in an industrial scale, we're dealing with a civil war. Cute Kennedy quote also, sadly irrelevant though as Syria is not under colonial control. It isn't throwing off colonial shackles. It is engaged in a dirty civil war which, again, has no stand out candidates to back. We'll probably lob a few cruise missiles weeks after the alleged gas attack and the civil war will continue.
First,I'll just point out, if you think Machiavelli is an authority on the modern relationship between Mercenaries and Governments, you might want to join us in this, the 21st century. (Nice Try on the vilification, but attacking me personally, rather than my views is a pathetic attempt) The UN's demands that nations not employ mercenaries to receive aid destabilized more countries than it 'helped' (which was the point). Though it is nice that you think, for example, that the French Foreign Legion are useless cowards who will betray France, since by Machivelli's definition, they qualify as Mercenaries, as well as the British Gurkhas (for those unfamiliar with their track record, let's just say it's impressive). And Syria, while not under colonial control, is still people trying to overthrow a tyrant in favor of democracy, even if it's a democracy the US doesn't agree with, which was what Kennedy was talking about.
As far as Irish mercenary numbers go, according to Le Mond, their embedded reporter met former Irish soldiers giving training to Syrian rebels back in March. As far as Iraq goes, I have not done the research myself, so I'll have to take a look into it as far as numbers goes (according to the Irish Sun, they suggest 5500, but that's not only old, but only covers the US State Department contracts with Aegis), but here's an article from the Irish times where they interview Irish soldiers who signed on with the UK to go to Iraq and Afghanistan. http://www.irishtimes.com/blogs/generationemigration/2013/03/08/the-military-emigrants-ive-lived-in-canada-and-in-a-hole-in-the-ground/. Aegis recruits extensively throughout Brittan and Ireland. My own experience says that it runs about 1/3 right off the boat to ones that have been a generation 'someplace else' (including Scotland, Wales, etc)
As far as the US not being the 'world police' that sort of came with winning the Cold War. The US wanted to dictate the course of events and shape western thought and policy. Now they do, but they get everything, all the responsibility, that comes with that. As they say, be careful what you wish for, you might just get it.
Getting back on the subject, however, am I the only one that finds that Russia has given Assad nuclear tech a bit disturbing? The fact they built them a breeder reactor means they can make all the enriched radioactive materials they want.
cadbren wrote: Aside from spurious accusations of supporting Hesbollah or whoever, what has Iran actually done against the West?
Only 'spurious accusations? Seriously?
Spurious was probably the wrong word. What I meant was that the attacks of Hesbollah have not been aimed at the West so Iran's support of them or not is irrelevant.
And that statement would be wrong too. You may want to look up the 1983 bombing in Beirut which very specifically targeted US marines and French troops. .
As Beirut is in the Middle East and not the West that is not a valid rebuttal. Israel is not a Western nation, the Arab-Israeli wars are a middle eastern conflict, go consult an atlas if you don't believe me. Constant meddling in those affairs led to 911, and despite the mostly Saudi involvement, little was ever done in regards Saudi Arabia.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jihadin wrote: As was mention before. If we do put "Boots on Ground" (I'm retired) and we find out some of those WMD's were from Iraq. Best put the USS Lincoln and the USS Reagan side by side for one massive BBQ paid for by Bush. All this time we spent looking in the wrong desert. If we do put boots on ground in Syria. All that equipment we left behind in Iraq we might be able to get back. Generators alone can pretty much power ten divisions and a couple major airfields....
And if you cause the overthrow of the current regime, find no WMDs, end up helping a radical islamic group get into power, then what? We know what. You'll say, "Gee shucks, guess we goofed there, hyuk hyuk, but we still did the right thing."
Meanwhile Afghani translators and their families have been allowed into my country because despite the "successful" mission there, these guys wont be safe once our forces leave. I believe similar arrangements have been made for Afghanis who cooperated with US and other coalition forces.
Jihadin wrote: IRS Scandal is a bit dead in the water with Holder/DoJ saying there be no investigation. NSA still doing their thing. I do want to make a reply to the 4500 being killed. They were military. Its one of the things we take a chance on in joining the military. A diplomat and security guards are not combat troops. They are not paid to engage the enemy. You can scream and holler about how Bush is responsible for the combat deaths and what not but did you forget the "Surge" that Obama signed off on in Afghanistan? If your going to, in your mind, put Bush on trial with a guilty verdict then you need to throw Obama himself on there to. Before you go screaming how Bush lied to Congress to get their go ahead for Iraq/OIF. He showed the same evidence he was looking at to Congress. Same as Obama doing now with military Action with Syria.
Yep, and back in the 90's after Desert Storm, Saddam was killing Kurds by the village load with nerve gas. It made for a plausible WMD argument when Bush Jr went into Iraq.
No, Saddam gassed the Kurds in the 1980s and the world looked on and did nothing.
Even after Desert Storm when they could have gone in and ousted Saddam and arrested him for gassing the Kurds they didn't.
It wasn't until after the 2003 invasion that Saddam was suddenly found to be a war criminal and put on trial for gassing the Kurds and that was only done to destroy the regime.
It is also believed that he gassed the Kurds in the 90's as well, that's what I'm talking of:
Clinton did a half assed bombing campaign in the 90's, which sounds like Obama is hell bent on recreating, that I linked information about a few posts ago, but here it is again:
BaronIveagh wrote: ...And Syria, while not under colonial control, is still people trying to overthrow a tyrant in favor of democracy, even if it's a democracy the US doesn't agree with, which was what Kennedy was talking about.
One thing I guarantee is that this is not about democracy. Its about a bunch of little thugs trying to get rid of a bigger thug. Democracy is the last thing on their minds.
Jihadin wrote: As was mention before. If we do put "Boots on Ground" (I'm retired) and we find out some of those WMD's were from Iraq. Best put the USS Lincoln and the USS Reagan side by side for one massive BBQ paid for by Bush.
Keep the dream alive!
Make sure Santa Claus, Bigfoot, and The Loch Ness Monster get their invites as well
And there's the whembly "make it about Benghazi!" post I've been waiting for...
Whembly does not appear to be the only one. There appear to be lawmakers that are hesitant to go along with Obama because of his mis handling and mis information of Benghazi.
Seriously? Specifically targeting US and French troops is NOT an attack on western interests?
I didn't say Western interests though did I? I said the West and therein lies the problem. Some wealthy types decide that they can make more money by dealing with a different faction so they determine to unset the current regime to pave the way for their proxy to take over. These are geopolitical issues and not national ones. The US and French forces were an army of occupation, they weren't tourists. It doesn't matter why they were there, they weren't in their own countries when they got attacked. They were there in large numbers to forceably affect change. Someone else had a different idea of their presence and acted - successfully at that because those nations withdrew as a result. To put it bluntly, they went there to wage war and got killed.
In a couple of days it will have been 12 years since the planes went into the buildings, it seems that radical islam has become stronger in that period, if you think this is not correct then please state how it's been weakened.
Seriously? Specifically targeting US and French troops is NOT an attack on western interests?
I didn't say Western interests though did I? I said the West and therein lies the problem. Some wealthy types decide that they can make more money by dealing with a different faction so they determine to unset the current regime to pave the way for their proxy to take over. These are geopolitical issues and not national ones. The US and French forces were an army of occupation, they weren't tourists. It doesn't matter why they were there, they weren't in their own countries when they got attacked. They were there in large numbers to forceably affect change. Someone else had a different idea of their presence and acted - successfully at that because those nations withdrew as a result. To put it bluntly, they went there to wage war and got killed.
In a couple of days it will have been 12 years since the planes went into the buildings, it seems that radical islam has become stronger in that period, if you think this is not correct then please state how it's been weakened.
Ok, so specifically targetting US and French troops is NOT an attack on the west?
Jihadin wrote: IRS Scandal is a bit dead in the water with Holder/DoJ saying there be no investigation. NSA still doing their thing. I do want to make a reply to the 4500 being killed. They were military. Its one of the things we take a chance on in joining the military. A diplomat and security guards are not combat troops. They are not paid to engage the enemy. You can scream and holler about how Bush is responsible for the combat deaths and what not but did you forget the "Surge" that Obama signed off on in Afghanistan? If your going to, in your mind, put Bush on trial with a guilty verdict then you need to throw Obama himself on there to. Before you go screaming how Bush lied to Congress to get their go ahead for Iraq/OIF. He showed the same evidence he was looking at to Congress. Same as Obama doing now with military Action with Syria.
Yep, and back in the 90's after Desert Storm, Saddam was killing Kurds by the village load with nerve gas. It made for a plausible WMD argument when Bush Jr went into Iraq.
On comparing the 4 deaths in Libya versus the Iraq war 51,139 casualties 4,805 of which were deaths.
A) Numbers speak volumes which makes bush over 10,000% better at killing Americans through incompetence than Obama
B) The 4 casualties in Libya knew what they were getting into just as much as the 51,139 casualties in Iraq knew what they were getting into
C) The incompetence of Bush in Iraq was plunging the nation into an unnecessary land war that did nothing to improve national security.
D) The incompetence of Obama in Libya was a failed to attempt to obfuscate and spin what happened in Libya. I don't fault him in failing to commit the US military into a strike without congressional approval when the ambassador was under attack and Libyan authorities were unsuccessfully attempting to regain control on the situation. I don't believe the US should bomb Syria, I think the Iraq war was a mistake, and I don't think we should have invaded Libyan air space to level part of Benghazi with air power in an effort that might have saved our ambassador.
I really dislike Obama's domestic policies, left of center agenda, failure to close GITMO, successful assaults on the 4th amendment, killing of entire families with drone strikes, killing 2 American citizens with drone strikes, or his plans to continue the Clinton doctrine with Syria. Obama is a bad president, but GW Bush was the worst president we had in 100 years who was only good at bsing congress in a post 9/11 political environment. There were no WMD in Iraq when we invaded because sanctions worked, weapons inspectors worked, and because even with a binary weapon system the shelf life of the primary component in a binary Sarin weapons system is only 5 years.
O
Last but not least I find it terrible inconsistent to support the Iraq war because it's a mad regime that might have WMD there and not support a full ground invasion of Syria when there is a mad regime that definitely has WMD. If your consistent and didn't support either war that's a good thing. If don't want a war in Syria because you matured and learned a lesson form the Iraq war that's a good thing, and not at all inconsistent. if you supported the Iraq war at the time but have concluded in hindsight that it was a bad idea that's also a good thing. If you still to this day support the Iraq war then you've lost all credibility in criticizing Obama'so war and should go sit at the kids table while the adults talk.
I think you misunderstand or are in argument and insult mode with everyone whether they support Obama going in or not. Here's a little tip, telling people to sit down at the kids table shuts them off to anything you have further to say because you obviously aren't bothering to think about what their point is. I have provided examples and links about how this is just more of history repeating itself, starting with Clinton's efforts to "degrade" Iraq's chemical weapons manufacturing with missle and bombing attacks in the 90's and how it compares to present time.
You clearly havn't read any of my posts since you take off on a rant against me.
Sorry about the insult I just can't grasp how people can look back in hindsight and still still he Iraq war was a good idea. I can see defending the position that we made the right choice given the intelligence on hand so there is no need for Monday morning quarterbacking. I would disagree with you, see no need for an invasion in either case, point out there is a stronger case for going into Syria even though it's a bad idea, and point out your agreement with an invasion appears to depend more on your like or dislike of the POTUS than facts. If that's the case Iapologize if you think I insulted you. I only intended to insult people that to this day With full hindsight think Invading Iraq was a good decision.
Whembly does not appear to be the only one. There appear to be lawmakers that are hesitant to go along with Obama because of his mis handling and mis information of Benghazi.
One thing I guarantee is that this is not about democracy. Its about a bunch of little thugs trying to get rid of a bigger thug. Democracy is the last thing on their minds.
Funny, the British press said the same thing about the colonies once upon a time. Here's the thing: the largest of the opposition groups is still about forming a secular, democratic government. (You know, the thing the US government denied them around 1947). While it's true that every revolution throughout history has been about power (who has it and who wants it) this one poses a bit of a thorn for the US, because a democratic Syria aligns with it's moral beliefs and national mythology, it does not align with it's economic and strategic plans for the Middle East. Notice they were quick to arrange a 'not coup' in Egypt when Morsi started throwing his weight around in Middle Eastern politics too much.
BaronIveagh wrote: Here's the thing: the largest of the opposition groups is still about forming a secular, democratic government.
I disagree, the largest of the opposition groups is about forming a 'secular democratic government' because that's what garners them the most support from overseas.
This started because of the heavyhandedness of the Assad regime resulted in protests calling for his resignation after protesters calling for a revolution were arrested, tortured and killed.
Jihadin wrote: IRS Scandal is a bit dead in the water with Holder/DoJ saying there be no investigation. NSA still doing their thing. I do want to make a reply to the 4500 being killed. They were military. Its one of the things we take a chance on in joining the military. A diplomat and security guards are not combat troops. They are not paid to engage the enemy. You can scream and holler about how Bush is responsible for the combat deaths and what not but did you forget the "Surge" that Obama signed off on in Afghanistan? If your going to, in your mind, put Bush on trial with a guilty verdict then you need to throw Obama himself on there to. Before you go screaming how Bush lied to Congress to get their go ahead for Iraq/OIF. He showed the same evidence he was looking at to Congress. Same as Obama doing now with military Action with Syria.
Yep, and back in the 90's after Desert Storm, Saddam was killing Kurds by the village load with nerve gas. It made for a plausible WMD argument when Bush Jr went into Iraq.
On comparing the 4 deaths in Libya versus the Iraq war 51,139 casualties 4,805 of which were deaths.
A) Numbers speak volumes which makes bush over 10,000% better at killing Americans through incompetence than Obama
B) The 4 casualties in Libya knew what they were getting into just as much as the 51,139 casualties in Iraq knew what they were getting into
C) The incompetence of Bush in Iraq was plunging the nation into an unnecessary land war that did nothing to improve national security.
D) The incompetence of Obama in Libya was a failed to attempt to obfuscate and spin what happened in Libya. I don't fault him in failing to commit the US military into a strike without congressional approval when the ambassador was under attack and Libyan authorities were unsuccessfully attempting to regain control on the situation. I don't believe the US should bomb Syria, I think the Iraq war was a mistake, and I don't think we should have invaded Libyan air space to level part of Benghazi with air power in an effort that might have saved our ambassador.
I really dislike Obama's domestic policies, left of center agenda, failure to close GITMO, successful assaults on the 4th amendment, killing of entire families with drone strikes, killing 2 American citizens with drone strikes, or his plans to continue the Clinton doctrine with Syria. Obama is a bad president, but GW Bush was the worst president we had in 100 years who was only good at bsing congress in a post 9/11 political environment. There were no WMD in Iraq when we invaded because sanctions worked, weapons inspectors worked, and because even with a binary weapon system the shelf life of the primary component in a binary Sarin weapons system is only 5 years.
O
Last but not least I find it terrible inconsistent to support the Iraq war because it's a mad regime that might have WMD there and not support a full ground invasion of Syria when there is a mad regime that definitely has WMD. If your consistent and didn't support either war that's a good thing. If don't want a war in Syria because you matured and learned a lesson form the Iraq war that's a good thing, and not at all inconsistent. if you supported the Iraq war at the time but have concluded in hindsight that it was a bad idea that's also a good thing. If you still to this day support the Iraq war then you've lost all credibility in criticizing Obama'so war and should go sit at the kids table while the adults talk.
I think you misunderstand or are in argument and insult mode with everyone whether they support Obama going in or not. Here's a little tip, telling people to sit down at the kids table shuts them off to anything you have further to say because you obviously aren't bothering to think about what their point is. I have provided examples and links about how this is just more of history repeating itself, starting with Clinton's efforts to "degrade" Iraq's chemical weapons manufacturing with missle and bombing attacks in the 90's and how it compares to present time.
You clearly havn't read any of my posts since you take off on a rant against me.
Sorry about the insult I just can't grasp how people can look back in hindsight and still still he Iraq war was a good idea. I can see defending the position that we made the right choice given the intelligence on hand so there is no need for Monday morning quarterbacking. I would disagree with you, see no need for an invasion in either case, point out there is a stronger case for going into Syria even though it's a bad idea, and point out your agreement with an invasion appears to depend more on your like or dislike of the POTUS than facts. If that's the case Iapologize if you think I insulted you. I only intended to insult people that to this day With full hindsight think Invading Iraq was a good decision.
No problem then. For myself, I think Obama is doing just that, going the whole Iraq route again, but this time with the added jollies of putting us in the position of after a fashion fighting alongside Al Queada.
Any place where Extremism is allowed to flourish will be a ripe recruiting ground and safe haven for Al-Qaeda. And nobody should allow that.
I never really pictured deepest darkest Dixie as a recruiting ground and safe haven for Al-Qaeda, but there are plenty of extremists. In the end, you're claiming to see the future, and bluntly, whoever did the most to help them winning side gets the most say so. Why do you think the Russians are pouring so much money into Assad? Tartus is valuable to them.
No problem then. For myself, I think Obama is doing just that, going the whole Iraq route again, but this time with the added jollies of putting us in the position of after a fashion fighting alongside Al Queada.
Obama taking his time with the situation IMO. I highly doubt he will get approval from the House and the Senate to launch an attack. Pretty much its known that a majority of the US pop do not support military action against Syria. I highly doubt when he gives his speech to the US on why we should it'll be "check the block" speech. He almost online with what Bush Jr did when we got involved with Iraq. Difference is when Bush did it the US did not have 12 years of combat in the Middle East already. Obama taking the right the course and I'm sure we all agree that we support him in his "attempt" to garner support for military action (He's taking lessons on being a actor from watching Ronald Reagan movies. I select him as Best Actor Award this year)
I'm taking it that Schadenfreude is misreading what we are saying Relapse?
Muslim Extremism does not always equate AQ. Point of fact, there are several extremist groups who'd cheer the US on as they roasted AQ in it's entirety alive. There are also those AQ aligned group who are so not because they particularly share AQ's objectives, but it's expedient for their own goals to be partners (in much the same way certain dictators find it expedient to be allies with the US without actually sharing any of it's goals or values). The basic question is: do they really believe what AQ is spouting or is it just a way to get weapons and training? I can't say for sure. Desperate men can make strange alliances.
On Congress: if they say no, and then Assad gasses Jerusalem, or Istanbul, or, god help us all, New York, can I laugh as Congress flops around trying to blame the President for it somehow?
Doesn't matter who they support, believe, or a member of. It all comes down to a body count in the "Insurgent Dead" column. You know and I know when someone trying to opt you out then you do the best to opt them out first.
Rule One
You play to win.
Rule Two
Always refer to Rule Two
Jihadin wrote: Doesn't matter who they support, believe, or a member of. It all comes down to a body count in the "Insurgent Dead" column. You know and I know when someone trying to opt you out then you do the best to opt them out first.
Rule One
You play to win.
Rule Two
Always refer to Rule Two
Yeah, but that's when treds start slapping pavement and you at least have a vague idea who to engage (eve if it's just 'everyone you see'). This is more the question of: Are these guys really die hard AQ or can we manipulate them to our advantage if not outright get them to defect to our side? That's why I think it's important to understand what their motive is. It's like Sun Tzu once wrote: To make your enemy's army your own is best; to destroy it, second best.
Jihadin wrote: I stick with AQ being able to influence a government organization. Its my perception and I'm sticking to it. Now pass me the cookies Dogma
The ability to influence a government organization does not indicate that said government is a puppet state.
I see no difference in the unless they come out with media coverage of denouncing AQ and provide the US with serious intell. As for individuals that's a gut check for them. Believe that strongly in the cause or how bad does that individual want the money. Individual also know if we get our "hooks" into them then we more likely "force" that individual to stay in current position to provide real time intell.
BaronIveagh wrote: This is more the question of: Are these guys really die hard AQ or can we manipulate them to our advantage if not outright get them to defect to our side?
Look, they're not any happier about this than we are, OK?
On a serious note. He needs a hair cut. His front bang is way to long. Must be Air Force Is there hard count number on how many military members posted those type of pics lately on Facebook?
I've seen about 3 or 4 unique ones. I have to imagine posting those sorts of things in uniform is super dangerous to your career, especially the higher ranked you are.
It'll be a counseling statement off the bat. If that was the only incident and I'm "forced" into getting it on documentation. Vast majority oftime I inform them to stop screwing off and getting stupid for making to obvious a post if they showed their face. A webpage with your name on it and a picture of you holding a sign like that covering your face. We can't do a damn thing about it.
Right now our..well...the military major issue that's coming to a head is the individual religious belief vs DOMA after effects of being repealed and the US military conforming to the new policy
Ouze wrote: I've seen about 3 or 4 unique ones. I have to imagine posting those sorts of things in uniform is super dangerous to your career, especially the higher ranked you are.
It can be, if word got back. It's pretty much a direct violation of the UCMJ. We don't get that thing called the 1st Amendment. When we took that Oath and signed the papers, that was one of the things we signed away.
Jihadin wrote: I see no difference in the unless they come out with media coverage of denouncing AQ and provide the US with serious intell. As for individuals that's a gut check for them. Believe that strongly in the cause or how bad does that individual want the money. Individual also know if we get our "hooks" into them then we more likely "force" that individual to stay in current position to provide real time intell.
I might point out that they likely have no serious intel. The only publicly released information actually linking the two is that one of the various heads of AQ in Iraq claimed that AN was affiliated with AQI and they were going to merge, at which point AN responded with 'We inform you that neither the al-Nusra command nor its consultative council, nor its general manager were aware of this announcement. It reached them via the media and if the speech is authentic, we were not consulted." though they do claim to consider AQ 'an ally' they also seem to try and distance themselves from them. In reality they seem to have much more solid ties to Fatah al-Islam and various Palestinian organizations.
For the proponents of military action: do you still think it should go forward even if the majority of Americans (depending on the question, ranging to the vast majority) think we should not;or that it's not in the national security interest to do so? Lets presume the poll to be accurate and have the more interesting debate.
If you wish to debate whether or not the US Government should ever fight a war the majority of it's citizens do not want, I'd like us to presume it's a new conflict, not continuing an existing one; I imagine almost every way in history eventually got pretty unpopular.
For the proponents of military action: do you still think it should go forward even if the majority of Americans (depending on the question, ranging to the vast majority) think we should not;or that it's not in the national security interest to do so? Lets presume the poll to be accurate and have the more interesting debate.
If you wish to debate whether or not the US Government should ever fight a war the majority of it's citizens do not want, I'd like us to presume it's a new conflict, not continuing an existing one; I imagine almost every way in history eventually got pretty unpopular.
Here's a man who's met Assad explaining better than I can about this man's mindset and why the intervention needs to be better tailored to this regime. Telling everyone how limited the airstrikes will be is the wrong sort of message. Assad needs to think that the next step would be boots on the ground. (Even if it's not true, for this to work he needs to think that.)
Seems Russia is pressuring Syria to surrender it's chemical weapons peacefully. I doubt it will happen,.
Historically, every single war Americans have been involved with was unpopular with the general public (with the possible exception of the American Revolution and the Spanish American War), usually right up to the moment that Americans were killed by a prospective enemy. Then their response shifted to either panic followed by 'Let's Get the Bastards!" if the Americans killed were US citizens in US territory, or "We TOLD you so!" and protests/riots if they were US citizens killed in someone else's territory. Traditionally the US government hasn't given a damn if the war was popular or no, as long as it served the agenda of at least one if not both ruling parties at the time.
I personally think that the US should go forward with military intervention, national interest or not because they started the ball rolling that led to this mess, they're the only ones with the capability to carry it out at the moment (though boots on the ground would be a stretch even for the US), and they stand to lose the most if nothing is done (other than possibly the Syrians). Further, it's a chance to dispose of a current state sponsor of terrorism (something I've noticed being avoided in the discussion of 'Well, a democratic Syria would sponsor terrorism' is that Syria has been sponsoring terrorism (including AQ) since the Assad's took over, and probably longer than that. At least with this there's a chance they might stop the government financing of it).
This doesn't even get into the issue of yes, please stomp on people who use WMDs on civilians, particularly ones that kill you in a horrific manner.
This question is the only one that matters to a Congress critter.
Would you be more likely to vote for your representative from Congress if that person voted in
favor of using U.S. military force in Syria, or if that person voted against using military force in
Syria, or would it not make a difference to your vote either way?
Sept. 6-8, 2013
In favor 11%
Against 31%
No difference 57%
No opinion 1%
To 57% of Americans it makes no difference how a congress person votes on this issue. This gives the Congress a free hand to do whatever they like.
However, the really question is what the "base" feels. This poll doesn't even get close to addressing that key issue. In our Gerrymandered districts, all that matters is how the "core" of the congress critters voters feel about the subject. I'm guessing there you would see that a Congresscritters hands are not as free as a general survey of "Americans" would indicate.
For the proponents of military action: do you still think it should go forward even if the majority of Americans (depending on the question, ranging to the vast majority) think we should not;or that it's not in the national security interest to do so? Lets presume the poll to be accurate and have the more interesting debate.
If you wish to debate whether or not the US Government should ever fight a war the majority of it's citizens do not want, I'd like us to presume it's a new conflict, not continuing an existing one; I imagine almost every way in history eventually got pretty unpopular.
I generally have a low opinion of the average American's ability to understand complex geopolitical situations, and I do not I believe the average American is privy to all available and relevant classified intelligence, despite the best efforts of patriot-martyrs like Edward 'Tovarisch' Snowden.
We elect presidents to lead. We can kick 'em out if we don't like where they're leading us, but the notion that national defense decisions should be made based on public opinion polling is one I do not subscribe to.
Well considering the vast number of wars we've had since Presidents did more of that "declaration of war" thing and expressed what that deep intelligence was, it doesn't look like your theory has worked very well.
Frazzled wrote: Well considering the vast number of wars we've had since Presidents did more of that "declaration of war" thing and expressed what that deep intelligence was, it doesn't look like your theory has worked very well.
I'd have to ask you to clarify that statement.
I will point out one thing, and I know this will sound incredibly callous, but the US is going to have wars, it could actually use more wars like Iraq, as opposed to most of it's previous wars. Casualties grand total for Iraq and Afghanistan combined is around 57k. Per capita, that's the lowest casualty rate of any actual war the US has fought since the Philippine Insurrection. Afghanistan has been going on for almost half as long as Vietnam, grand total, but has only had 1/10th the casualties. I know these don't directly correlate (technology and tactics, etc), but to put it in perspective: The Union lost more in three days at Gettysburg than the US in ten years in Afghanistan, and there were not that many Americans alive at the time. The US Army lost more KIA during Operation Overlord than the total casualties for Afghanistan. Killed, wounded, and missing, they lost twice the combined numbers for Iraq and Afghanistan from June to August 1944.
Not to say that they're not bad places to be and that the men don't need to come home, but looking at it strictly from a context of cost in lives and material, compared to most wars the US has been involved in, they have not been too bad.
I’ll bite:
Korea: bloody draw. We’re still there, trapped in this weird dance of craptown with a psycho in a 5th world country.
Vietnam: How’d that turn out?
Somalia: Bad
Kosova: Bad to midlin. drug lord and slavers run the place.
Afghanistan 1: Beat the Soviets but helped form AlQaeda. I’d rather have the Rooskies. At least they were sane.
Afghanistan II: We did ok going after AlQaeda. Then it turned into “lets build a country” Crap fest we’re being run out of.
Iraq 1: We went after the wrong guys.
Iraq 2: We went after the wrong guys (again) and now the bad guys effectively run most of the country.
But not to be outdone:
Libya: helped change that from a dictatorship to Somalia lite. Awesome job there Ricky.
Egypt: Mmmm. Helped kick out a military dictator, replaced by an Islamic dictator, not replaced by…a military dictator.
Syria: Islamofascists who kill prisoners and persecute Christians on one side, Nazi dictator (look up the structure of the Baath party) on the other.
Crazily, just staying out of everyone’s affairs might have been a better course…
Frazzled wrote: I’ll bite:
Korea: bloody draw. We’re still there, trapped in this weird dance of craptown with a psycho in a 5th world country.
Vietnam: How’d that turn out?
Somalia: Bad
Kosova: Bad to midlin. drug lord and slavers run the place.
Afghanistan 1: Beat the Soviets but helped form AlQaeda. I’d rather have the Rooskies. At least they were sane.
Afghanistan II: We did ok going after AlQaeda. Then it turned into “lets build a country” Crap fest we’re being run out of.
Iraq 1: We went after the wrong guys.
Iraq 2: We went after the wrong guys (again) and now the bad guys effectively run most of the country.
But not to be outdone:
Libya: helped change that from a dictatorship to Somalia lite. Awesome job there Ricky.
Egypt: Mmmm. Helped kick out a military dictator, replaced by an Islamic dictator, not replaced by…a military dictator.
Syria: Islamofascists who kill prisoners and persecute Christians on one side, Nazi dictator (look up the structure of the Baath party) on the other.
Crazily, just staying out of everyone’s affairs might have been a better course…
Crazily, just staying out of everyone’s affairs might have been a better course…
World War 2: Stayed out of it until it bit America on the ass and had a body count to dwarf all the others combined. So, staying out of it worked *great* too.
And to the fine inhabitants of England, I might point out that the track record for negotiating with dictators for peace has been almost as bad as the US track record for invading a country and having things turn out as planned.
Crazily, just staying out of everyone’s affairs might have been a better course…
World War 2: Stayed out of it until it bit America on the ass and had a body count to dwarf all the others combined. So, staying out of it worked *great* too.
And to the fine inhabitants of England, I might point out that the track record for negotiating with dictators for peace has been almost as bad as the US track record for invading a country and having things turn out as planned.
Peace in Our Time? Remember? How'd that turn out?
It only "bit us in the ass" because we embargoed Japan. Left well enough alone and we could have been friends with everyone. imagine all the stuff we could have sold! B17s to the Germans, trucks to the Russians, oil and proper aircraft carriers to the Japanese...
It only "bit us in the ass" because we embargoed Japan. Left well enough alone and we could have been friends with everyone. imagine all the stuff we could have sold! B17s to the Germans, trucks to the Russians, oil and proper aircraft carriers to the Japanese...
Frazz, minor point, at the beginning of the war Japanese Aircraft carriers were more advanced than the US. It was Radar that gave the US it's advantage, not the quality, or even initially the quantity of their carriers.
Both Hitler and the Kaiser before him drew up plans to strike the North American mainland. Considering that part of Hitler's plan was to subvert the Mexican government, you might have had the Das Reich division rolling across the Rio Grande.
We elect presidents to lead. We can kick 'em out if we don't like where they're leading us, but the notion that national defense decisions should be made based on public opinion polling is one I do not subscribe to.
Part of being an effective leader is understanding the disposition of the people you are leading.
It only "bit us in the ass" because we embargoed Japan. Left well enough alone and we could have been friends with everyone. imagine all the stuff we could have sold! B17s to the Germans, trucks to the Russians, oil and proper aircraft carriers to the Japanese...
Frazz, minor point, at the beginning of the war Japanese Aircraft carriers were more advanced than the US. It was Radar that gave the US it's advantage, not the quality, or even initially the quantity of their carriers.
The Enterprise disagrees with you. But having said that, we're not just going to sell the radar. you want the radar, you gots to buy the ship too. But its ok, we offer an extended service plan.
Both Hitler and the Kaiser before him drew up plans to strike the North American mainland. Considering that part of Hitler's plan was to subvert the Mexican government, you might have had the Das Reich division rolling across the Rio Grande.
1. they weren't serious and Mexico isn't stupid. 2. Every country has contingency plans. I'm sure we have plans to invade the Moon and the Isle of Man. 3. there would be no need for conflict with one of your main suppliers 4. despite all that, the only outcome would have been a lot of dead Germans.
And part of it is to shape that disposition so that it aligns with your goals.
Shaping the disposition of a nation the size of the United States takes a very long time, and military intervention of any kind has not been a major component of the Democratic platform in many years.
It only "bit us in the ass" because we embargoed Japan. Left well enough alone and we could have been friends with everyone. imagine all the stuff we could have sold! B17s to the Germans, trucks to the Russians, oil and proper aircraft carriers to the Japanese...
The Axis powers were fundamentally evil. The situation necessitated intervention. GW I was also necessary to protect our strategic interests in the Middle East, and a complete success. Our failure in Iraq was in not realizing that Saddam would have made a rather interesting asset. Surely he caused us his own share of problems, but as a secular dictator he could be easily bought.
The problem with the current conflict is that neither side is better than the other morally or strategically. We'd be wasting American lives and dollars to, at best, support a side that hates us.
Okay, I'm a little confused. I understand opposition to full scale invasion and boots on the ground, etc. I understand that even if the majority of rebels can be considered "good guys" they have some nasty friends, so backing and supplying them is a questionable endevour.
But I fail to see the downside of limited cruise missile strikes. Will they achieve anything? Not really, but that's sort of the point isn't it? Obama is a Democrat, he doesn't want to risk American lives and he doesn't want to start his own Iraq. Missile strikes run neither of these risks. Assad simply has absolutely no way whatsoever of retaliating.
As far as I can see, lobbing a few missiles and drones at Assad's forces wouldn't significantly change the strategic situation on the ground and would serve as an effective reminder to Assad that he's allowed to massacre his own people and such, but he has to do so according to the rules, and the rules say no chems.
As to the cost, a few tens of millions is less than the tiniest drop in the world's largest bucket, so again, I just don't see the problem. If the only downside is cost, it's the equivelent of spending weeks arguing over a few pennies.
I'm open to the possibility I'm wrong, so I welcome criticism.
AndrewC wrote: This started because of the heavyhandedness of the Assad regime resulted in protests calling for his resignation after protesters calling for a revolution were arrested, tortured and killed.
Democracy is the last thing that started this.
Large numbers of protestors called for the leader's resignation, and were violently persecuted.... and that has nothing to do with democracy.
xole wrote: I'm not getting the comparison to WW2. COmpletely different opponents with completely different potential outcomes.
WW2 was (partially) the result of doing nothing and pretending that the problem would just go away on it's own (England had a prime minster who said as much, IIRC). A lot of the same reasons were given before the outbreak of the war in Europe (and even after in the US) of why it was someone else's problem, and if we don't get involved it will all blow over. My point is that while, as certain posters like to point out, times that the US intervened were bad, the times they did nothing until it was pretty late in the game turned out much worse by several orders of magnitude. While in this case, it's unlikely that Assad will suddenly invade Poland, there's still the likelihood that doing nothing comes back to bite the US in unforeseen ways as well as the more obvious ones.
Large numbers of protestors called for the leader's resignation, and were violently persecuted.... and that has nothing to do with democracy.
What the hell?
Point of fact, Democracy in Syria, and the US' opposition to democracy in Syria back in the late 1940's, is actually what started this chain of events.
That's not actually true. When Israel carried out Operation Orchard, Syria came close to launching a full scale chemical attack on Israel, and only the fact the US made it plain it had supplied Israel with nukes for a counter attack kept that from happening. There's also the big unknown as to how much of what nuclear tech that Russia has provided Syria recently.
BaronIveagh wrote: WW2 was (partially) the result of doing nothing and pretending that the problem would just go away on it's own (England had a prime minster who said as much, IIRC).
Not really. Chamberlain's 'peace in our time' is certainly a line that looked terrible in the wake of what happened, but it wasn't a very good reflection of his actual position. While he might have given that line that when he returned home from Munich, the first thing he did was double British defence spending. He was under no illusion as to what was coming.
Ribbentrop was actually outraged at the outcome of Munich, by the way, as he felt the British had denied them them their cause for war, which they could have used to justify an invasion of France. As it was they had to delay for a period, and with their invasion of Poland accept that the world saw quite clearly that Germany was undertaking military expansion.
And Chamberlain continued to serve as Prime Minister during the early stages of the war, only being replaced after the Narvik mess (which ironically enough was more the fault of Churchill, if the blame could be placed at the hands of anyone in the political leadership).
Point of fact, Democracy in Syria, and the US' opposition to democracy in Syria back in the late 1940's, is actually what started this chain of events.
Sort of, maybe. Seven decades of history is long time to linking cause and effect chains. The current movements have very little direct connection to those democratic parties of the past.
I mean, I agree that efforts to dismiss Syrian efforts at democracy are mistaken, and that interference in the nation's democracy in the past was shortsighted and completely immoral, but tying it all together is just a little too neat.
dogma wrote: Part of being an effective leader is understanding the disposition of the people you are leading.
Understand it by all means. But I'll say it again: making national security decisions based on the opinion of a largely uninformed and indifferent populace is a horrible, and dangerous, and horribly dangerous idea.
Seaward wrote: Understand it by all means. But I'll say it again: making national security decisions based on the opinion of a largely uninformed and indifferent populace is a horrible, and dangerous, and horribly dangerous idea.
True. But ignoring public opinion entirely and relying on select advisors is also horribly dangerous (echo chamber and all that).
That's kind of why leadership is such a tricky thing.
Understand it by all means. But I'll say it again: making national security decisions based on the opinion of a largely uninformed and indifferent populace is a horrible, and dangerous, and horribly dangerous idea.
I doubt very seriously that anyone in a position of power bases national security decisions solely on the whim of the electorate. Of course that factors in, because even beyond reelection public figures have to consider the political costs associated with all their decisions, but that's pretty much where it stops.
To use the current situation as an example: if Obama moves beyond a token intervention in Syria it will damage his political image. Now, he doesn't necessarily have to care about this as he will essentially "out" of politics once this term is over. However, if his political image is tarnished then any member of his party that is associated with him will have a more difficult bid for office and, more importantly, and legislation that is associated with him will have a more difficult road to passage. Given this he has to weigh the value of an intervention in Syria against the effect it might have on something else he wants to accomplish and, unlike in a place like Israel*, security does not trump all other concerns in the United States. In certain situations it absolutely can, but that's far the case in a universal sense.
*Not to be construed as an attack on Israeli policy.
dogma wrote: I doubt very seriously that anyone in a position of power bases national security decisions solely on the whim of the electorate.
I certainly hope not.
But what started us down this path was Ouze asking if those who support intervention in Syria still support it in light of the fact that public polling suggests most Americans don't. It sounds like we're both in agreement that polling shouldn't be what makes that decision.
xole wrote: I'm not getting the comparison to WW2. COmpletely different opponents with completely different potential outcomes.
Its called "appeal to emotion". Since BaronIveagh doesn't really have any logical argument to support his position, he is relegated to saying things like "if we don't attack Syria then the Nazis will kill 6 million Jews" to try and garner support for it.
xole wrote: I'm not getting the comparison to WW2. COmpletely different opponents with completely different potential outcomes.
Its called "appeal to emotion". Since BaronIveagh doesn't really have any logical argument to support his position, he is relegated to saying things like "if we don't attack Syria then the Nazis will kill 6 million Jews" to try and garner support for it.
I don't agree with BaronIveagh's stance at all, but I did think some of his arguments in the thread were compelling (some were less so, such as the US constitution ones, not to rehash that). Specifically why bombing the areas would be a bad idea, and the general argument that, to sum it up pithily, all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
While I disagree - in my experience evil prevails anyway regardless of what you do - I think it's a fair argument too, the with great responsibility one. As a kid who grew up reading Spider-Man it certainly resonated with me, as well as that sometimes you have to protect a world that fears and hates you for your mutations, and that even if you have a bad heart or dead parents, you can still do great things if you have a giant boat of money... Look, any analogy breaks down if you take it too far, but I don't think they were all just appeals to emotion.
xole wrote: I'm not getting the comparison to WW2. COmpletely different opponents with completely different potential outcomes.
Its called "appeal to emotion". Since BaronIveagh doesn't really have any logical argument to support his position, he is relegated to saying things like "if we don't attack Syria then the Nazis will kill 6 million Jews" to try and garner support for it.
I don't agree with BaronIveagh's stance at all, but I did think some of his arguments in the thread were compelling (some were less so, such as the US constitution ones, not to rehash that). Specifically why bombing the areas would be a bad idea, and the general argument that, to sum it up pithily, all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
While I disagree - in my experience evil prevails anyway regardless of what you do - I think it's a fair argument too, the with great responsibility one. As a kid who grew up reading Spider-Man it certainly resonated with me, as well as that sometimes you have to protect a world that fears and hates you for your mutations, and that even if you have a bad heart, you can still do great things id you have a giant boat of money... Look, any analogy breaks down if you take it too far, but I don't think they were all just appeals to emotion.
I didn't say they were all appeals to emotion, I said his comparisons to WW2 were appeals to emotion.
Also I'm sorry to say, but the US really isn't the world's super-hero... For starters almost everyone that you guys tried to "help" in the past few years (to continue the analogy), has came out of it worse than they were before US intervention, so I think its time for the US to hang up its mask and concentrate on just being another reporter (where the hell has this analogy taken me?! ).
PhantomViper wrote: For starters almost everyone that you guys tried to "help" in the past few years (to continue the analogy), has came out of it worse than they were before US intervention, so I think its time for the US to hang up its mask and concentrate on just being another reporter (where the hell has this analogy taken me?! ).
Such as?
We went into neither Afghanistan nor Iraq to help. Those weren't humanitarian interventions.
" (kudos to Veep for that).
