U.S. Politics - the end of summer edition

[The Progressive]

Flinn,

I was quite engaged politically during the ramp up to the Iraq invasion and your recalling of the public opposition is quite incorrect.

There were a huge public backlash with hundreds of thousands of people protesting the occupation worldwide.

Furthermore, the justification for war as pushed by the Bush administration was that "Iraq has WMD and they WILL use it against the West so we must preemptive strike them before they do" .......... which is a far cry from what's known already about Syria, which is that the Assad regime HAS ALREADY used chemical weapons against civilians and the message that must be sent is that use usage will not be tolerated.

If you can't see the difference, then I can't help you.

[awesome possum]

The more I read this board, the more I realize how marginalized and out of touch the views of many posters here are compared to the rest of society ............ the fringe here are still shouting about maybe the attack was staged by the rebels and OMGNSANSA!!! while the rest of the public has moved on to discuss what's sort of intervention should it be. :dunno:

When you have liberals and conservatives who normally can't agree on anything agreeing that we shouldn't intervene in Syria, I don't think you're talking to the fringe. I think you may be looking in from the fringe.

I think that this board is no longer left-leaning with the recent onslaught of rising libertarian shills and idiotic isolationism.

The thing about libertarians is that most of them don't stay libertarians. As a former-libertarian friend of mine put it, "show me a libertarian and I'll show you someone with a sheltered upbringing. And living in this country its hard to stay sheltered once you actually have to go out into the world."

Flinn what about all the pictures and video of the aftermath on social media? Surely that must be very hard to fake.

That's terrible and wrong. But why is it up to the United States to be the world police? I've already seen the argument in this thread and the Middle East thread but really, what difference does it make how those civilians are murdered? 100,000 dead from "conventional" warfare and 4 million displaced and a big heaping bowl of nothing is done. 1000 die from chemical attacks and suddenly we must step in?

It's hypocrisy at its finest, in my eyes.

[The Progressive]

When you have liberals and conservatives who normally can't agree on anything agreeing that we shouldn't intervene in Syria, I don't think you're talking to the fringe. I think you may be looking in from the fringe.

That's a bizzare conclusion to draw, given that kouran and I agree to intervention; and inigma was for it some months ago and now he's against it.

But tell me awesomepossum, why are you trying so hard to deliberately ignore the explanation that the "fringe" as described are those who are still arguing that it was the rebels who planted the chemical attack and the NSA cooked the intel?

[Shryke]

That's terrible and wrong. But why is it up to the United States to be the world police? I've already seen the argument in this thread and the Middle East thread but really, what difference does it make how those civilians are murdered? 100,000 dead from "conventional" warfare and 4 million displaced and a big heaping bowl of nothing is done. 1000 die from chemical attacks and suddenly we must step in?

It's hypocrisy at its finest, in my eyes.

That neither addresses his point nor does it make sense since nothing about this situation is hypocritical.

And again I will point out that no matter how many times you say "chemical weapons are no different then conventional weapons", it doesn't make it true in international law or in any other political arena for the last hundred years.

Really, the whole "it's no different" argument strikes me as the most disingenuous since it only seems to have emerged as a reaction to the suggestion of intervention in Syria. It stinks of post-hoc argumentation.

[thecryptile]

Why was Hussein not met with military intervention from the international community when he used chemical weapons in the 1980s? Why was Mussolini's use of chemical weapons in Abyssinia not met with military intervention? Or the activities of Unit 731 in Japanese held Manchuria?

Regardless of international law and political arenas, the use of chemical and biological weapons has been ignored or met with only moral opposition time and time again. Why should Syria be any different?

Why should it fall to the US to do the intervening if the international community is so united in the belief that military intervention must occur?

[awesome possum]

That's a bizzare conclusion to draw, given that kouran and I agree to intervention; and inigma was for it some months ago and now he's against it.

And you and kouran are in the minority.

But tell me awesomepossum, why are you trying so hard to deliberately ignore the explanation that the "fringe" as described are those who are still arguing that it was the rebels who planted the chemical attack and the NSA cooked the intel?

I gotta hand it to you, Lev. In between your bizarre nonsensical rants your ability to read people's minds has expanded to reading people's intentions as well. For you to know that I am trying - so hard - to deliberately ignore your personal definition for the fringe. The nerve of me, I tell you!

That neither addresses his point nor does it make sense since nothing about this situation is hypocritical.

Sitting back and doing nothing publicly about a hundred thousand innocents being slaughtered and then ramping up to go to fucking war over the deaths of 1000 is absolutely hypocritical in my eyes. You can argue all you want - we all know you love it - but the key there is "in my eyes." It's my opinion. You can argue all you want but you will not change my mind.

And again I will point out that no matter how many times you say "chemical weapons are no different then conventional weapons", it doesn't make it true in international law or in any other political arena for the last hundred years.

Unless you're Saddam Hussein. Or the United States.

Really, the whole "it's no different" argument strikes me as the most disingenuous since it only seems to have emerged as a reaction to the suggestion of intervention in Syria. It stinks of post-hoc argumentation.

You mean since it emerged as an excuse for our military-industrial complex to make some more money? There is no goodwill in this gesture. There's no "doing the right thing." That went out the window a year ago. We sat idly by while ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND Syrian civilians were murdered.

[Shryke]

Why was Hussein not met with military intervention from the international community when he used chemical weapons in the 1980s? Why was Mussolini's use of chemical weapons in Abyssinia not met with military intervention? Or the activities of Unit 731 in Japanese held Manchuria?

Regardless of international law and political arenas, the use of chemical and biological weapons has been ignored or met with only moral opposition time and time again. Why should Syria be any different?

Why should it be the same?

[danro]

One of the few things almost every nation has agreed is not ok to do under any circumstance is to use CW. After their invention and wide use in WW1 winners, losers and neutrals all agreed to this.

This agreement has for the most part held up for almost a century. Even the nazis in WW2 respected it.

I'm looking at the long game here. So anti-western rebels might win if anyone moves against Syria? So what! To let this can of worms be opened again without serious consequences for the perpetrators would be a big step backwards for mankind.

If I could have my way the top men in any hierarchy that uses CW would personally hunted down and killed ASAP, consequences be damned. I'm sorry if this sounds bloodthirsty, but if it turns out that the Syrian state apparatus is indeed responsible for this I hope Assad & Co get what they got coming, and hopefully a lot quicker than Saddam & Ali did.

I'm thankful to anyone who would do this.

The US seems to be in the best position, but I don't think they will really do anything meaningful. And shame on the rest of our governments for not offering to do their part.

[Hereward]

I agree.

[thecryptile]

The majority of Americans oppose US intervention in Syria. There is no gain for the US in Syrian intervention. The need to show that the international community disapproves of chemical weapons doesn't require American military intervention. You think Assad doesn't know that chemical weapons are frowned on? You think lobbing a tomahawk missile over there will cause him to surrender? I don't.

[TrueMetis]

I find this line of logic odd, since it seems to be saying that because bad shit was allowed to happen in the past it should continue to be allowed.

[thecryptile]

It's more along the lines of "Two wrongs don't make a right."

[karaddin]

While I'm sympathetic to people who feel that the US has done enough and just want to step back, I think you need to realise two things with that: 1) that's a major policy shift that is going to have an awful lot of complex outcomes that you aren't going to see here, it's not just a one off decision for this specific situation and 2) while the American people may not want to intervene in Syria, they also may not be ready to relinquish the role the US plays in the world if you don't.

I am extremely skeptical that the US will be in it alone if anything ends up happening, if it's just from the air you'll manage to get the UK on board somehow and it seems France is willing to be part of it too. If it ended up more than that I'm sure Australia will join in with some small force as we do. The difference is that as you are the leaders of the broad alliances, so you are the leaders in moving to get things done.

Please note: this is not saying I think intervention is necessarily the right decision, just that people oversimplify the situation.

[TrueMetis]

It's more along the lines of "Two wrongs don't make a right."

Then you might want to make that argument rather than pointing out times when countries used chemical weapons and weren't dealt with as they should have been.

[Inigima]

That's a bizzare conclusion to draw, given that kouran and I agree to intervention; and inigma was for it some months ago and now he's against it.

I actually don't have a firm position; I've posted some thoughts from people I respect, and I've corrected some erroneous statements, but no more. It's a nasty situation and I don't know what the right move is. I think there are good reasons to believe that we ought to sharply punish the use of chemical weapons as a deterrent; I also don't know if action in this case will make us or Syrians better off.

[awesome possum]

The idea that using chemical weapons is somehow crossing a line to the United States is absolutely hypocritical considering that the US has used chemical weapons on its own people multiple times or that it's likely they provided Saddam with the chemical weapons he used against Iran.

More "do as we say and not as we do" nonsense. I say stay the fuck out of it and rebuild this country rather than destroying another that we'll have to pay for later.

[Commodore]

http://www.washingto...2c-c0b0d9d4fe0a

As the hearing continues, our ace photographer Melina Mara reports she spotted Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) “passing the time by playing poker on his iPhone during the hearing.”

John McCain is contemptible

[thecryptile]

Then you might want to make that argument rather than pointing out times when countries used chemical weapons and weren't dealt with as they should have been.

Shryke was making this huge deal about International Law. He said that the International Community has always been against the use of non-conventional weapons (true enough), and that Syrian intervention is following the precedents of the past 100 years- which is why I bring up earlier uses. The precedent isn't military intervention- it's inaction!

I have no problem if Canada wants to lead the way on military intervention- I just want my own country to stay out of that mess.

[Shryke]

Shryke was making this huge deal about International Law. He said that the International Community has always been against the use of non-conventional weapons (true enough), and that Syrian intervention is following the precedents of the past 100 years- which is why I bring up earlier uses. The precedent isn't military intervention- it's inaction!

And yet again still missing the point. You didn't even counter the really basic argument made.

Prior inaction does not imply that the future response should also be inaction.

"Two wrongs don't make a right" is exactly correct here. If it was wrong to do nothing in the past, doing nothing now does not make inaction then or now right.

Sitting back and doing nothing publicly about a hundred thousand innocents being slaughtered and then ramping up to go to fucking war over the deaths of 1000 is absolutely hypocritical in my eyes. You can argue all you want - we all know you love it - but the key there is "in my eyes." It's my opinion. You can argue all you want but you will not change my mind.

Yes, I don't believe at this point you are going to admit international law and precedent is not on your side here.

You mean since it emerged as an excuse for our military-industrial complex to make some more money? There is no goodwill in this gesture. There's no "doing the right thing." That went out the window a year ago. We sat idly by while ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND Syrian civilians were murdered.

This is a tired, baseless and generic accusation. If the US military-industrial complex was all gungho for war to make some money, why didn't they intervene a year ago?

[awesome possum]

Yes, I don't believe at this point you are going to admit international law and precedent is not on your side here.

Yes, international law. If it's international law then where is the international support? I don't consider France or Turkey to be significant considering their ulterior motives. Where is the UN support, because as far as I know the Sec-Gen of the UN said a US strike would be illegal without the support they have not offered.

And what precedent? You keep saying that but as thecryptile (strange bedfollows indeed) said, there is more of a precedent for inaction than action.

This is a tired, baseless and generic accusation. If the US military-industrial complex was all gungho for war to make some money, why didn't they intervene a year ago?

They didn't have the sequester hurting their coffers a year ago.

ETA- and hey, what a coincidence; the next round of sequester cuts to the Pentagon would kick into effect next month