U.S. Politics - the end of summer edition

[ThinkerX]

Asked about the possibility of deploying U.S. troops into Syria, Secretary of State John F. Kerry didn’t rule it out.

“I don’t want to take off the table an option that might or might not be on the table,” he said — a turn of phrase designed to keep open the possibility that troops could be deployed into the country if the situation escalates.

Kerry’s answer came in response to a question by Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) about the wording of a White House-written resolution to authorize military force.

“I do think we’re going to have to work on language that makes it clear” what exactly the U.S. military would be authorized to do, Menendez said in response to Kerry’s answer.

This gets into what really concerns me about this mess.

1) Start with airstrikes...which don't do much good.

2) Use reasoning like that quoted above to put a few hundred 'advisors' on the ground to help the dubious 'good guys' get organized...which also doesn't do much good. So...

3) Send in tens of thousands of 'contractors' (mercenaries) under a blanket of secrecy and lies, which leads to

4) the person(s) exposing step 3 gets condemned as a traitor, and the US protesters who demonstrate about this afterwards are deemed a 'security risk'.

[Atreides]

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

John McCain is contemptible

Well, I'm pretty sure McCain had already made up his mind 100% before then. But he does seem to be awfully happy about being caught playing games at work on the taxpayer dime.

[thecryptile]

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

You're missing the point. America starting another war in Syria is a bad move.

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

"I don't believe at this point you are going to admit precedent is not on your side here".

The historical precedent is one of non-intervention. Name one use of chemical weapons by a state actor that has been met with military intervention by other previously non-aligned states.

[Ramsay Gimp]

Gotta love this BS line about American "credibility" suffering if we don't strike. Does anyone actually give a shit about that outside the beltway? Does any non-DC insider think "Oh no, the Saudi Royals and Israel may think we won't have their back all the time! This totally affects my life!"

[danro]

And yet, the thing is that down the line it might well do just that.

[Ramsay Gimp]

And yet, the thing is that down the line it might well do just that.

Tell me how. Specifics. If the entire country of Syria disappeared in a poof of smoke tomorrow the citizens of the USA would not be affected in the least

[Lord Mord]

While I think the importance of the oh-so-fragile status quo of the region is oft grossly overstated, it doesn't give you the least little pause to suppose blithely an entire state apparatus can vanish in such a crucial region and nobody here is affected? Not saying any specifics are jumping out at me, but the certainty with which you posit Exactly Zero consequences strikes me as insane.

[snake]

When the US attacks Syria it will be breaking International Law.

And the rhetoric coming out of the White House now hints more at regime change than just a few missiles being fired. John Kerry would not rule out boots on the ground.

You guys have fun with ya new war. :)

[danro]

Ramsay, what happens in Syria might not affect the US now. Possibly never.

Making empty threats about red lines might. Weakening the position of leadership the US holds sure will. Weakening the taboo on chemical weapons is likely to.

Allies and adversaries will all take note.

It's really not a good spot to be in, and I bet Obama wishes he hadn't been that specific earlier or had secured support in advance.

[lokisnow]

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.

This is exactly right. Dead is dead. And it's 100 dead from chemical weapons, not 1000--according to France at least. The rebels exaggerated the numbers for propaganda purposes. The sarin gas was probably sold to Assad by the US as well. Let's prosecute the guys that did the sale before we invade a country and slaughter some Syrian civilians in the name of saving face or making a nebulous 'point.' Remember, we've slaughtered 200,000+ iraqi civilians in the last war, 200,000 people that would be alive if Sadamm had been left alone.

Seems clear we're intervening because the DoD has been feeling the pinch of the sequester and they don't like it. So they gotta manufacture a war so they can get some sweet taxpayer cash.

I fucking hate DC. Only the DC bubble could think Syria was worth invading. Fucktarded fuckheads and their fucking echo chamber of idiocy.

[lokisnow]

here's a question, why haven't Russia or China or Great Britain or Brazil or a coalition of european countries threatened to 'TEACH' the united states a lesson with limited bombings of USA military sites (in the continental USA). Afterall, the USA is very unrepentant about violating century old norms of torture. The USA committed mammoth war crimes, tortured thousands of victims and has largely gotten away with it. Would a few tomahawks thrown at us be any different than the few tomahawks we're threatening to throw at Assad. Would the USA learn the lesson Great Britain wanted to teach us if GB decided the best way to get us to stop torturing was to bomb the USA?

The whole fucking concept is absolutely insane. And when it comes to century old norms of warfare, the USA has been egregiously violating them for a decade and has sinned just as bad as Assad, if Assad did kill those 100ish people with the chemical weapons attack. You could probably argue the USA disturbance of international historical norms was worse because we've probably tortured more victims than Assad has gassed.

mote in Assad's eye, beam in Obama's eye.

[karaddin]

USA is the biggest kid, no one can touch you. It's hardly morally consistent but it is what it is, and the big kids rigged the game to favour themselves in the long run.

[Ormond]

Seems clear we're intervening because the DoD has been feeling the pinch of the sequester and they don't like it. So they gotta manufacture a war so they can get some sweet taxpayer cash.

Sorry, but I think this point is so irrationally cynical as to be foolish. It certainly seems to me that people in the Pentagon have been much less in favor of American military actions the last couple of decades than those in the State Department have. I do not believe that there are very many active generals or admirals who are callous about the lives of their personnel.

[Altherion]

here's a question, why haven't Russia or China or Great Britain or Brazil or a coalition of european countries threatened to 'TEACH' the united states a lesson with limited bombings of USA military sites (in the continental USA). Afterall, the USA is very unrepentant about violating century old norms of torture. The USA committed mammoth war crimes, tortured thousands of victims and has largely gotten away with it. Would a few tomahawks thrown at us be any different than the few tomahawks we're threatening to throw at Assad. Would the USA learn the lesson Great Britain wanted to teach us if GB decided the best way to get us to stop torturing was to bomb the USA?

Because this is probably the fastest possible way to start WWIII? If the US sees ordinance headed towards military sites in the continental USA, it is not likely to wait for impact (at which point it can figure out that this is a "teaching" strike rather than the beginning of a first strike). The same reasoning holds for attacking Russia, China, etc. -- "teaching" countries that have nukes is a bad idea (unless you're sure you can get them all).

[fuseprime]

here's a question, why haven't Russia or China or Great Britain or Brazil or a coalition of european countries threatened to 'TEACH' the united states a lesson with limited bombings of USA military sites (in the continental USA). Afterall, the USA is very unrepentant about violating century old norms of torture. The USA committed mammoth war crimes, tortured thousands of victims and has largely gotten away with it. Would a few tomahawks thrown at us be any different than the few tomahawks we're threatening to throw at Assad. Would the USA learn the lesson Great Britain wanted to teach us if GB decided the best way to get us to stop torturing was to bomb the USA?

The whole fucking concept is absolutely insane. And when it comes to century old norms of warfare, the USA has been egregiously violating them for a decade and has sinned just as bad as Assad, if Assad did kill those 100ish people with the chemical weapons attack. You could probably argue the USA disturbance of international historical norms was worse because we've probably tortured more victims than Assad has gassed.

mote in Assad's eye, beam in Obama's eye.

hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha Okay bro.

Russia, China, GB, and the rest of your "coalition" have a much worse human rights record than the US supposedly does. If those countries even threatened to use military force against the US it would be an auto-death for them. I'm not even talking about bombs or bots, I'm talking about economic sanctions. China's whole economy is tied to American business, and if America put an embargo on them, they would be right back to 1971.

I get what you're trying to say, and I don't want America to drop bombs on Syria either. But, to say such asinine things like the US is violating "century old norms of warfare/torture" is astounding. I don't think you really have an idea what the US is capable of or what great lengths the US goes to in order to dumb down our forces in order to be humane.

[Sci-2]

John McCain Caught Playing iPhone Game During Syria Senate Hearing

Look, yes, sometimes you've just gotta play VIP Poker during a three-hour Senate meeting about whether or not America should attack a foreign country. War talks are just so boring, you know?

Spotted and snapped by the Washington Post, this is an over-the-shoulder shot of Senator John McCain playing poker during the super-long Syria hearing today. He lost. :(

[Shryke]

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.

A percent of established international law. Specifically that chemical weapons are wrong and no one should use them.

That said law has been ignored on many occasions does not mean it should continue to be ignored. Generally when such things are being ignored, that's taken as evidence you should stop ignoring international law, not that you should continue to do so.

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

:rolleyes:

Is this seriously the new accusation? Really?

[The Marquis de Leech]

For what it's worth, the relevant international law is here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Protocol

You'd also have a reasonable case for arguing that the prohibition on chemical weaponry has become customary too.

The question then becomes about what to do about breaches. I really don't think intervention should be the first resort: this situation requires investigation and possible sanctions, not another Iraq.

[Shryke]

Isn't Syria already subject to sanctions? Not, like, Iran level or anything, but there are some aren't there?

I wonder how much it would effect the current situation. On one level, it's not like there's much of an economy to ruin at this point but on the other hand apparently Assad has been a good paying customer on the arms front and stricter economic sanctions might impact that.

Then again, I don't see that passing Russia or China unvetoed.

[TrackerNeil]

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 oppose any foreign policy tactic that is heedless of the consequences, which in this case will be dead Syrians.