Thread: Strike against Syria

Originally Posted by Jimbo

I'll keep an ear open today for the speech - I assume it is from Obama? I am sure that if it is important the Australian news will report it after it deals with the vastly more important issues of how tired our candidates look and which of their children are the most attractive.

James.

Or football, and who bit who's pen!s in the last game...Damn it James. You made me have to say something!


Mick

Originally Posted by OCDshaver

Really gugi? I think I can follow logic just fine thank you. Apparently you are intent on ignoring my statements on national interest and would rather inject my personal distaste.

I just didn't think it is necessary to direct you to the first paragraphs of the founding document of the USA: Declaration of Independence - Text Transcript

Obama's argument so far is that the people of Syria have been abused by their government, so USA as the oldest modern representative democracy has a duty to intervene and failure to do so is a betrayal of its very founding principle.
I don't see how you can not assign top national interest to that, given the proclivity this country has to big words, even though in most cases its actions appear to be driven by money and power.

Do you expect Obama or any other politician instead of populistic rhetoric to offer as justification the ugly realpolitik calculations and the special interests and money behind the scenes?

No, Syria does not present direct thread to US soil, virtually nobody does. But leaving Assad's defiance to US go unpunished (if it was really him who used the chemical weapons), insures his victory in the current civil war, as well as strengthens Russia, Iran, Hizbollah, etc.. It would also accelerate the crossing of the next 'red line', Iran's nuclear weapons. That's not a direct thread to US either, but nuclear Iran vastly diminishes the strength of US. For better or worse the US policy is to maintain position of dominance and conduct its business from there. Any undermining of this position is against the US interests.
Is this the type of argument (and I made it as general as possible to minimize the ugliness, but the more specific you get the more cynical it is) you expect a president to make in justifying a war?

May be the world would be much better off with US having half of its current economic power and a tenth of its military power, but US does not think this would be in its national interest.

@gugi

"As far as I can tell Obama is trying to build a coalition both in US and abroad based on that 'chemical weapons are horrible' treaty. May be he will succeed, may be he won't, but if he doesn't then it's either a lack of evidence, or the world community would own up to its hypocrisy and that may end up bringing changes in international politics."

Hypocrisy? Think that's a bit harsh. Many believe there are more than enough regional powers that should deal with the issues in their own backyard. There is nothing to gain here but more resentment.

Many also believe that nothing good ever comes from this type of interference. Like Iraq for instance. Iraq and Iran, two countries who hated each other and warred against each other for years. The US backed Iraq for many years until Iraq fell out of favour (we'll just leave that little tidbit alone, great pic Rumsfeld shaking Saddam's hand btw!).

What happened? An regional balance was destroyed, Iraq was essentially removed from the stage, which of course paved the way for Iran to emerge as the regional superpower.

How's that working out for the world?

If there's any hypocrisy, it rests on the shoulders of their neighbours, who stand by and watch their brothers and sisters, fathers and mothers, wiped out while they do nothing.

Originally Posted by gugi

I just didn't think it is necessary to direct you to the first paragraphs of the founding document of the USA: Declaration of Independence - Text Transcript

Obama's argument so far is that the people of Syria have been abused by their government, so USA as the oldest modern representative democracy has a duty to intervene and failure to do so is a betrayal of its very founding principle.
I don't see how you can not assign top national interest to that, given the proclivity this country has to big words, even though in most cases its actions appear to be driven by money and power.

Do you expect Obama or any other politician instead of populistic rhetoric to offer as justification the ugly realpolitik calculations and the special interests and money behind the scenes?

No, Syria does not present direct thread to US soil, virtually nobody does. But leaving Assad's defiance to US go unpunished (if it was really him who used the chemical weapons), insures his victory in the current civil war, as well as strengthens Russia, Iran, Hizbollah, etc.. It would also accelerate the crossing of the next 'red line', Iran's nuclear weapons. That's not a direct thread to US either, but nuclear Iran vastly diminishes the strength of US. For better or worse the US policy is to maintain position of dominance and conduct its business from there. Any undermining of this position is against the US interests.
Is this the type of argument (and I made it as general as possible to minimize the ugliness, but the more specific you get the more cynical it is) you expect a president to make in justifying a war?

May be the world would be much better off with US having half of its current economic power and a tenth of its military power, but US does not think this would be in its national interest.

Gugi, I love ya man, but there's one thing in all of this that I think you may be overlooking...

In reference to the Declaration of Independence, our founding fathers were talking about a people throwing off the tyranny of THEIR OWN government, more specifically, if it occurred within the United States.

Now, I do believe in helping those who are oppressed and cannot help themselves, but if it is an international ordeal, pause should be given and the United Nations should be the ones intervening. We could certainly bring the matter before the UN, and lead the charge, but the WORLD AS A WHOLE should be involved in making the decision to go to war, since THE WORLD AS A WHOLE has established international law.

The saber rattling by our President should have been before the UN, seeking their intervention, not just up and saying that WE would declare war or become aggressors. To do so belittles the role and purpose of the UN, and in my opinion, sends a message to the rest of the world that we don't really give two sh**s about what their opinion is, and also kinda says we really don't need 'em, which is all wrong in my mind. One lesson I learned early in life is not to crap where you eat. You need allies and friends, and basically telling them that what they bring to the table isn't worth a hill of dung is one sure fire way to lose all your friends real fast.

I don't think it's harsh at all. If the british colonies here were left to themselves and their neighbors some two hundred years ago the question may now be settled, after the vote a week ago.

You bring up Syria's neighbors, here's the list (clockwise from the top): Turkey, Iraq, Jordan, Israel, Lebanon.

It seems to me Iraq was a testing ground and complete failure of the neoconservative ideology. The public reasons to go to that war kept changing, but the scenario that they claimed would happen was shock&awe following by the Iraqi's welcoming US as the liberator, embracing democracy and all of its values and then becoming the regional superpower under heavy US influence.
US has one of the best geopolitical analysts in the world, so I don't believe for one second that 'nobody could forsee what would happen, the sectarian violence etc.'. I think it was a case of ideology and/or special interests/money overriding the sober analysis. I hope Obama has learned that lesson, and can probably avoid a lot of the worst scenarios.

It looks to me that Syria is one of the big bargaining chips with Iran, slowly but surely that case is advancing.

Originally Posted by crouton976

In reference to the Declaration of Independence, our founding fathers were talking about a people throwing off the tyranny of THEIR OWN government, more specifically, if it occurred within the United States.

Well they wrote it as general as possible, claiming high moral ground and applying to every single person anywhere in the world. Of course, judging by their subsequent actions we know they really didn't mean it, but that's never stopped anybody from claiming this as the ideal this country should strive to live up to.

Originally Posted by crouton976

Now, I do believe in helping those who are oppressed and cannot help themselves, but if it is an international ordeal, pause should be given and the United Nations should be the ones intervening. We could certainly bring the matter before the UN, and lead the charge, but the WORLD AS A WHOLE should be involved in making the decision to go to war, since THE WORLD AS A WHOLE has established international law.

I agree, but isn't that what they're doing? These matters are decided in the UN security council, where Russia and China have veto power and both have said they would use it to prevent a resolution against Syria (let's not forget that US is routinely using its veto power to kill any resolution against Israel, so that's how business is done there). From what I've read Obama's trying to persuade more countries at the various international forums over these couple of weeks, and he's trying to persuade the US Congress at the same time.

So far I don't see anything troubling, except that many people are unhappy with being forced to take a position one way or another. That was bound to happen sooner or later, though, and I'm sure that whoever decided to use the chemical weapons right now did it because they judged it now to be the best time for them to force the issue.

What's that saying, "you can't be a little bit pregnant."

What in fact is being discussed here, no boots on the ground? So, what we're talking about is dropping some bombs from 30,000 feet, tossing some cruise missiles and then back to the carrier for Miller time!?!

That's not a meaningful intervention. It won't accomplish anything other than to kill people on both sides of the equation and will accomplish nothing but further regional resentment.

This would just be another exercise of "big hat, no cattle." - if this issue is truly meaningful, it should be dealt with it in a meaningful manner. Dropping bombs, aside from accomplishing nothing, is just a bad PR exercise so politicians can pat themselves on the back and feel like they, "acted".

Originally Posted by gugi

I just didn't think it is necessary to direct you to the first paragraphs of the founding document of the USA: Declaration of Independence - Text Transcript

Obama's argument so far is that the people of Syria have been abused by their government, so USA as the oldest modern representative democracy has a duty to intervene and failure to do so is a betrayal of its very founding principle.
I don't see how you can not assign top national interest to that, given the proclivity this country has to big words, even though in most cases its actions appear to be driven by money and power.

Do you expect Obama or any other politician instead of populistic rhetoric to offer as justification the ugly realpolitik calculations and the special interests and money behind the scenes?

No, Syria does not present direct thread to US soil, virtually nobody does. But leaving Assad's defiance to US go unpunished (if it was really him who used the chemical weapons), insures his victory in the current civil war, as well as strengthens Russia, Iran, Hizbollah, etc.. It would also accelerate the crossing of the next 'red line', Iran's nuclear weapons. That's not a direct thread to US either, but nuclear Iran vastly diminishes the strength of US. For better or worse the US policy is to maintain position of dominance and conduct its business from there. Any undermining of this position is against the US interests.
Is this the type of argument (and I made it as general as possible to minimize the ugliness, but the more specific you get the more cynical it is) you expect a president to make in justifying a war?

May be the world would be much better off with US having half of its current economic power and a tenth of its military power, but US does not think this would be in its national interest.

Gugi,

Sometimes I think your ONLY point of view is to disagree with me. The answer to us going to war in Syria is to be found in our Declaration of Independence?! I'm not even going to bother to go through the motions about how absurd that is. As for the rest, your arguments are unconvincing. Iran wins if Syria wins. But that's not any different than the status quo. And if Assad loses? Al Qeada wins. How is that better?

Originally Posted by OCDshaver

Gugi,

Sometimes I think your ONLY point of view is to disagree with me. The answer to us going to war in Syria is to be found in our Declaration of Independence?! I'm not even going to bother to go through the motions about how absurd that is. As for the rest, your arguments are unconvincing. Iran wins if Syria wins. But that's not any different than the status quo. And if Assad loses? Al Qeada wins. How is that better?

I've not argued for or against going to war with Syria, or claimed that the founding fathers want you to go for it. I just answered your question, how is Obama's argument so far related to US national interests, and then gave you even more arguments.

As far as what's preferable, a government enemy (Iran), or a non-government enemy (Al Qaeda), I can't believe that's even a question. Even a tiny state (which Iran isn't) has vastly bigger resources at its disposal than any 'network', not to mention the differences in the means for self-preservation between them.
Just stop for a second and pretend if you can the current president is your childhood hero, so that this is not a distraction anymore. Now, do you think Al Qaeda, Muslim Brotherhood, Hizbollah, Hamas, etc, are in a position to produce nuclear weapons anytime in the next half century? Because Iran is and the timetable is probably in the months.

Originally Posted by gugi

I've not argued for or against going to war with Syria, or claimed that the founding fathers want you to go for it. I just answered your question, how is Obama's argument so far related to US national interests, and then gave you even more arguments.

As far as what's preferable, a government enemy (Iran), or a non-government enemy (Al Qaeda), I can't believe that's even a question. Even a tiny state (which Iran isn't) has vastly bigger resources at its disposal than any 'network', not to mention the differences in the means for self-preservation between them.
Just stop for a second and pretend if you can the current president is your childhood hero, so that this is not a distraction anymore. Now, do you think Al Qaeda, Muslim Brotherhood, Hizbollah, Hamas, etc, are in a position to produce nuclear weapons anytime in the next half century? Because Iran is and the timetable is probably in the months.

Yeah we'll that network flew two planes full of passengers into the World Trade Center and another into the Pentagon, something Iran wouldn't bother to try.