US politics: back to school

[Arch-MaesterPhilip]

And that's a big No-No. Unless, of course, we're providing the chemical weapons to be used. Or using them on our own people.

Of course, the West gets to do things like that.

I don't think we should be supporting this.

[awesome possum]

I don't think we should be supporting this.

Agreed. The problem is that if the various rebel factions win, they are likely to turn around and go to war with each other on who gets to rule. There have already been stories of rebel groups beheading leaders of other rebel groups.

There is no way to "win" in Syria. Let them fight their own civil war.

[Ser Reptitious]

I agree with you. It's shameful that we - the world, not just the US - have let over a hundred thousand die in Syria. But, if we weren't going to intervene then we shouldn't intervene now. We haven't intervened in most world atrocities unless we had a vested interested or could stake a claim to some of the leftovers afterward.

Intervention in my mind doesn't necessarily (and certainly not exclusively) have to be militarily, although depending on the situation that may have to be a part of it. One way to start things might be for the five permanent UNSC members to get together and try to find some common ground. I'm sure all of them find the current state of outright civil war undesirable. Further, I'm sure all them agree that Islamic fundamentalists cannot be allowed to hold power in the final outcome. While Russia and China right now prefer to keep Assad, there may perhaps be a way to convince them to settle for someone else as part of the horse-trading.

All of this is speculative on my part, of course, but right now I don't see any effort being made (not even the slightest baby-steps) towards finding a solution that might be acceptable to the big international players.

When Obama took office there was still 45,000 people dying a month in the Congo. From 1998 to 2008 over 5 million people died there - half were children. Are the people of Congo somehow less human than our own? To this day the pygmies are still being killed - and often eaten - by both sides of that conflict because they're regarded as subhuman. Where was and is the outrage?

Or Sri Lanka where the both sides of that civil war reportedly were committing atrocities, and which in 2009 saw up to 40,000 Tamil people slaughtered by the government. Are the Sri Lankan people somehow less human than our own?

In Darfur the lowest estimate for loss of lives is around 178,000.

Those who practice Falun Gong in China have seen at least 2,000 with estimates up to 70,000 killed.

You mention Bosnia. Bosnia had an estimated 40,000 civilian deaths. Rwanda the year before had between 500,000 and 1,000,000.

Cambodia - 1,000,000 to 3,000,000

East Timor - up to 180,000

Ethiopia - anywhere from 150,000 to 500,000

Burundi - 50,000 to 100,000

Equatorial Guinea - 20,000 to 80,000

Nigeria - 1,000,000 to 3,000,000

We've sat idly by through pretty much all of them. What makes Syria so special now? I'm not saying this applies to you personally Ser Rep so please don't think I'm talking directly to you here, but I find it very disturbing that "popular" outrage over atrocities usually is reserved for countries whose people can look Caucasian.

I think a lot of the popular outrage depends on the media coverage, and it may well be that the Western media to a certain extent has the bias that you indicate.

As for myself, the reason why I specifically mentioned Bosnia is because I happened to travel through that country last year and made good friends there who told me their horror stories of living through the war. Hearing things like that from people my own age (I'm 35) and younger was a real eye opener. It really hit home on the "if I had been born here that could have been me" front.

And Rwanda... well, there's just no way that I can convey through a message board how strongly I feel about the world's failure to stop the genocide there. The part that still infuriates me beyond belief is that when violence first broke out many Western nations sent in troops, but only to safely escort out their own nationals. Had those troops stayed, the genocide could have been prevented. I think Hotel Rwanda and Shake Hands with the Devil: The Journey of Romeo Dallaire should be mandatory viewing for everyone. I'd dare anyone to watch them and still argue that the world needs fewer outside interventions, rather than more.

The long list of conflicts with extremely high casualty rates that you list is indeed a depressing reminder of how much is wrong with this world. But I think it is precisely because so many perpetrators think (rightly) that they will get away with it that they don't hesitate to embark on such a course of action in the first place.

To bring it back to Syria, I think the argument now is that if not even the use of chemical weapons (on top of all the other atrocities that have already occurred) will make the world care, then what will? Anything?

The less the world intervenes when war crimes and crimes against humanity are being committed, the more of them you'll likely see. That is the unfortunate reality, and why doing nothing in Syria will be every bit as bad in the long run (from a global perspective) as doing something and perhaps not getting it right.

[Fez]

While the resolution appears set to pass the Senate, the House whip count is looking very unlikely; with the latest numbers being somewhere around 50 in favor, 170 opposed, and the rest undecided. Nearly all of those in favor are either Democrats or Republican leadership as well, with the vast majority of rank-and-file Republicans opposed.

So I guess we'll soon be finding out both what Obama planned on doing if the Congress didn't approve the resolution and if Boehner is willing to ignore the Hastert rule again (although doing so this time seems unlikely to hurt him). Amash has already said he'll file an impeachment bill if Obama orders strikes without Congressional approval, and I wouldn't be surprised if it gains a fair amount of traction (far more than the attempts against Bush in 2007 anyway). Even if the House went through with it though, the Senate would obviously never convict, but maybe it would be enough to call off intervention.

Considering how vastly unpopular intervention is, I really think Obama is shooting himself in the foot right now. And I'm really worried it'll weaken him politically right before he needs to get through the upcoming budget/debt ceiling fights.

[Shryke]

I agree with you. It's shameful that we - the world, not just the US - have let over a hundred thousand die in Syria. But, if we weren't going to intervene then we shouldn't intervene now. We haven't intervened in most world atrocities unless we had a vested interested or could stake a claim to some of the leftovers afterward.

That doesn't make any sense.

"We were heartless before, so we should continue to be in the future"???

We've sat idly by through pretty much all of them. What makes Syria so special now? I'm not saying this applies to you personally Ser Rep so please don't think I'm talking directly to you here, but I find it very disturbing that "popular" outrage over atrocities usually is reserved for countries whose people can look Caucasian.

What makes Syria special now? They are violating a different international law then they were before and this time someone is willing to say something about it. That's it. But what more is needed?

Tbh, given that there is no neutral arbiter (similar to courts in the domestic arena) to determine whether a military intervention is 'legal' and that it instead simply depends on the arbitrary mood of five governments, I'm far more interested in the moral case for intervention than the legal one. And I say that as someone who has studied and practiced law.

The legal argument seems rather dubious to me in the first place since it depends entirely on thinking "the approval of the 5 biggest powers post-WWII" takes precedence over other treaties and obligations.

[Shryke]

While the resolution appears set to pass the Senate, the House whip count is looking very unlikely; with the latest numbers being somewhere around 50 in favor, 170 opposed, and the rest undecided. Nearly all of those in favor are either Democrats or Republican leadership as well, with the vast majority of rank-and-file Republicans opposed.

So I guess we'll soon be finding out both what Obama planned on doing if the Congress didn't approve the resolution and if Boehner is willing to ignore the Hastert rule again (although doing so this time seems unlikely to hurt him). Amash has already said he'll file an impeachment bill if Obama orders strikes without Congressional approval, and I wouldn't be surprised if it gains a fair amount of traction (far more than the attempts against Bush in 2007 anyway). Even if the House went through with it though, the Senate would obviously never convict, but maybe it would be enough to call off intervention.

Considering how vastly unpopular intervention is, I really think Obama is shooting himself in the foot right now. And I'm really worried it'll weaken him politically right before he needs to get through the upcoming budget/debt ceiling fights.

Given the current situation, if the measure fails in the House I think Obama will call off military intervention for the moment and basically wait to see if there's a next big surprise out of Syria and then likely do something after that.

[awesome possum]

Intervention in my mind doesn't necessarily (and certainly not exclusively) have to be militarily, although depending on the situation that may have to be a part of it. One way to start things might be for the five permanent UNSC members to get together and try to find some common ground. I'm sure all of them find the current state of outright civil war undesirable. Further, I'm sure all them agree that Islamic fundamentalists cannot be allowed to hold power in the final outcome. While Russia and China right now prefer to keep Assad, there may perhaps be a way to convince them to settle for someone else as part of the horse-trading.

That would be ideal, but how would they go about getting rid of Assad and who is there to replace him that hasn't either been part of his corrupt dictatorship or an Islamic extremist? According to this article there are at least 1200 different rebel groups with Islamic extremists leading the biggest of them and that Kerry has been straight up lying his expensive plastic face off when you compare his words to the findings of the intelligence reports.

"I've heard that there are moderate groups out there we could, in theory, support," said Joshua Foust, a former U.S. intelligence analyst who now writes about foreign policy.

"But I've heard from those same people and my own contacts within (U.S. intelligence) that the scary people are displacing more and more moderate groups. Basically, the jihadists are setting up governance and community councils while the moderates exhaust themselves doing the heavy fighting," Foust said.

The exact same people who are our enemies in the War on Terror ® would now be our allies. We would (continue to) arm them and put them in positions of power afterward. That's why I say let them have it out. I don't want my son or daughter to have to go to Syria in 10-15 years to fight the same guys we would be arming. I've seen that song and dance. It ends up with countless innocents dead.

To bring it back to Syria, I think the argument now is that if not even the use of chemical weapons (on top of all the other atrocities that have already occurred) will make the world care, then what will? Anything?

To be honest, I don't know if anything will as long as the US is on one side. A decade of the world's largest superpower leading so many other countries into a thankless, stupid war and

(you will probably want to just listen to that interview. Some of the images are soul-crushing) comes across to me like the rest of the world is war-fatigued and just considers the US's word now as utterly contemptible.

That doesn't make any sense.

"We were heartless before, so we should continue to be in the future"???

And you think bombing Syria and massacring their civilians is less heartless because?

What makes Syria special now? They are violating a different international law then they were before and this time someone is willing to say something about it. That's it. But what more is needed?

Ooh, they're violating a different international law this time. The same international law the US has violated, but never mind that. Do as we say and not as we do. Or we'll bomb the hell out of you.

[awesome possum]

I've said it before, I'm saying it now, and I'll say it again.

Let's focus on our problems here at home before we go intervening in a country that hasn't asked us:

A week later, toward the end of the House Foreign Affairs hearing on the subject, Grayson was the lone member of Congress who didn't bother with a statement. He used his five minutes to fire off questions to the Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense, getting John Kerry to say that no rebel groups had actually asked for intervention since this discussion began.

We have problems aplenty right here

Some 17.6 million U.S. households had trouble feeding their family members at times last year as “food insecurity” remained at near-record levels for the fifth straight year, according to a government report released Wednesday.

More than one-third of these households – 7 million – suffered from “very low food security,” in which usual eating patterns were disrupted and consumption was reduced because of a lack of money and access to food.

In all, 49 million Americans didn’t know where their next meals would come from at some point in 2012, the U.S. Department of Agriculture reported.

The fact that we're contemplating spending billions of dollars to interfere in yet another Middle Eastern country while 49 million Americans had trouble finding ways to feed themselves is... I don't have any words for how fucking horrible that is because "that's fucking horrible" is just too mild.

[Guest Raidne]

Glad to see the Canadians are ready to take responsibility for the tragedy in Syria.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

Glad to see the Canadians are ready to take responsibility for the tragedy in Syria.

Shryke is always prepared to spend other people's money and lives.

[Kouran]

Apparently you ask deliberately stupid questions.

Personally, I start considering what you do when international law comes into conflict with itself. It would seem you'd have to decide what you think is more important.

You ask the Canadian Navy to get in their row boats and throw a few rocks at the Syrian coast, though that might be more firepower than the Canadian Navy has.

Oooooh wait you demand the US Navy do shit and then get all indignant about it afterwards. I forgot how that dog and pony show works.

This Polandball explains the situation nicelly, too bad we cant direct link.

http://i.imgur.com/34AZcm3.png

[Galactus]

You ask the Canadian Navy to get in their row boats and throw a few rocks at the Syrian coast, though that might be more firepower than the Canadian Navy has.

Oooooh wait you demand the US Navy do shit and then get all indignant about it afterwards. I forgot how that dog and pony show works.

This Polandball explains the situation nicelly, too bad we cant direct link.

http://i.imgur.com/34AZcm3.png

.... I think you totally misread the purpose of that Polandball...

[Kouran]

.... I think you totally misread the purpose of that Polandball...

Nah I got it just fine, but look at it from the American perspective instead.

[Galactus]

Nah I got it just fine, but look at it from the American perspective instead.

The entire joke is that he's just pretending to not want to bomb the shit out of places. Note that he starts stockpiling bombs without even being asked?

[sToNED_CAT]

Shryke is always prepared to spend other people's money and lives.

But only when Obama agrees!!

[TrackerNeil]

While the resolution appears set to pass the Senate, the House whip count is looking very unlikely; with the latest numbers being somewhere around 50 in favor, 170 opposed, and the rest undecided. Nearly all of those in favor are either Democrats or Republican leadership as well, with the vast majority of rank-and-file Republicans opposed.

It's strange that Republicans, who up until now were wailing and moaning that Obama is too lax with America's enemies, are now crying for patience and diplomacy and what-have-you. Not that they are wrong, necessarily, but the hypocrisy is just choking me.

[The Progressive]

Well the Syrian civil war has been raging for almost two years .............. I'm not sure how much more waiting they want to take.

It's strange but just some months ago, some people were bitching that Obama was too indecisive and should take action right away when the first use of sarin was reported but unconfirmed. But now that the use of chemical attack has been verified with massive death tolls, we're being told that waiting is prudence ............ or even worse, the morally corrupt stance of isolationism is now being touted as a virtue lol.

[awesome possum]

Well the Syrian civil war has been raging for almost two years .............. I'm not sure how much more waiting they want to take.

It's strange but just some months ago, some people were bitching that Obama was too indecisive and should take action right away when the first use of sarin was reported but unconfirmed. But now that the use of chemical attack has been verified with massive death tolls, we're being told that waiting is prudence ............ or even worse, the morally corrupt stance of isolationism is now being touted as a virtue lol.

Can you point out these "massive death tolls" please?

Because what I'm seeing is that Kerry and Obama were full of it on the 1400 number (which, while awful doesn't exactly strike me as OMG MASSIVE DEATH TOLLS compared to the 100,000 who died before them).

British intelligence organizations said last week that they believed at least 350 people had been killed. French intelligence said Monday that it had confirmed at least 281 deaths through open-source videos, although its experts had created models that were consistent with as many as 1,500 deaths.

The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, generally regarded as one of the most reliable sources of information on casualty figures in Syria, says it has confirmed 502 deaths, including 80 children and 137 women. Rami Abdul-Rahman, a Syrian expatriate who runs the organization from his home in Britain, said he was shocked by the White House's count.

"I don't know where this number came from," Abdul-Rahman said in a phone interview.

But I don't really expect facts from you, big guy so don't give yourself another case of the vapors.

[Lord Mord]

shryke,

And what happens when the Security Council refuses to enforce it's own rules?

I'm sorry, are you an advocate now of anarchy? Or just of whatever-shryke-likes-goes-y? I'm sure you can appreciate the rest of us might prefer the protections of rule of law.

[The Progressive]

You are right awesomepossum, 502 deaths are not massive death tolls at all.

You sure got me there with your wonderful grasp of mathematics.