US politics: back to school

[Fez]

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.

Its not isolationism to not want to get involved in a quagmire with no explanation of how we'd succeed or even what the definition of success is.

[The Progressive]

I really disagree with your opinion given that the senate panel resolution spelled out quite clearly what our objectives are, here's a handy link to the actual text of the resolution:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/165273326/Senate-Foreign-Relations-Committee-Syria-AUMF

[Fez]

I really disagree with your opinion given that the senate panel resolution spelled out quite clearly what our objectives are, here's a handy link to the actual text of the resolution:

http://www.scribd.co...ttee-Syria-AUMF

You think "change the military equation on the battlefield" is a clear objective?

ETA: Also, even for the clear objectives, there is no explanation of how we plan on accomplishing them, or what accomplishing them would mean longterm.

[The Progressive]

You think "change the military equation on the battlefield" is a clear objective?

Well that could be as difficult as you want to be, or as simple as "before the airstrikes, the assad regime has this many weapon depots and bases; after the airstrikes, the assad regime has this many left".

I was schooled today by awesome possum on basic mathematics, so I'll just have to rely on good old fashion counting.

[The Progressive]

The objection isn't to what the objectives of the U.S. are, it's to how there's any way in hell the U.S. is going to be able to realistically fulfill those objectives.

That's a good point, but I rather we light a candle than curse the darkness and do nothing.

That's what so morally corrupt and dangerous about isolationism.

[Kouran]

You think "change the military equation on the battlefield" is a clear objective?

ETA: Also, even for the clear objectives, there is no explanation of how we plan on accomplishing them, or what accomplishing them would mean longterm.

I clear object would be;

Mission: Remove all fixed wing military aircraft from Lat 32N to Lat 36N from 37E to 41E from operation below 10,000 feet.

Means: Enforced no fly zone with over flight by coalition aircraft.

Yet instead we get, change the equation on the ground, thats the equivalent of, um do something something... profit.

[lokisnow]

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.

Man, Nancy Pelosi is one of my favorite reps, but I hope she gets primaried hard for her idiotic warmongering.

I'd love to see lots of Primaries from the left of all the democrat fucks voting for war, vote the fucking bums out.

[Fez]

Man, Nancy Pelosi is one of my favorite reps, but I hope she gets primaried hard for her idiotic warmongering.

I'd love to see lots of Primaries from the left of all the democrat fucks voting for war, vote the fucking bums out.

Pelosi's not going to be in trouble, but this is a concern for quite a few other Democratic representatives. One less reported facet of the House's gerrymandering is that most of the remaining Democratic districts are really, really Blue, which means that most of the members are under a lot of pressure to be more liberal. So while the House as a whole since 2010 is the most conservative its been since roughly the 1920s (thanks tea party!), the Democratic caucus on its own is more liberal than its been since at least the '70s.

Its one reason why I think that more of the undecided Democrats are going to vote no than the White House seems to think.

ETA: typos

[lokisnow]

I got a robo call from Karen Bass yesterday asking me to participate in this http://bass.house.gov/syria-town-hall

I for sure won't be voting for her and will happily support even a republican with donations if she votes to attack Syria.

[awesome possum]

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

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

Let's do the math, shall we?

502/100,000 = 0.00502. That's one half of 1% of the deaths in Syria the last two years.

We did nothing about those 100,000 but we're going to start a war over 500? No thanks. If the Unites States government is okay with using chemical weapons on Iraqis and their own goddamned citizens; if we're okay with Israel using chemical weapons on Palestinians; if we're okay with Iraq using it on Iranians and its own citizens, then we can sit idly by this time as well. It's what we do best, even if "bombing brown-skinned people" is trying to take that top spot.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

We did nothing about those 100,000 but we're going to start a war over 500? No thanks. If the Unites States government is okay with using chemical weapons on Iraqis and their own goddamned citizens; if we're okay with Israel using chemical weapons on Palestinians; if we're okay with Iraq using it on Iranians and its own citizens, then we can sit idly by this time as well. It's what we do best, even if "bombing brown-skinned people" is trying to take that top spot.

Let us not forget that US police forces deploy chemical weapons on individuals and groups as a matter of routine.

[The Progressive]

Man, Nancy Pelosi is one of my favorite reps, but I hope she gets primaried hard for her idiotic warmongering.

I'd love to see lots of Primaries from the left of all the democrat fucks voting for war, vote the fucking bums out.

I got a robo call from Karen Bass yesterday asking me to participate in this http://bass.house.gov/syria-town-hall

I for sure won't be voting for her and will happily support even a republican with donations if she votes to attack Syria.

Wow, seems like the fringe left is turning into a version of leftwing teabaggers.

Interesting time.

[awesome possum]

Let us not forget that US police forces deploy chemical weapons on individuals and groups as a matter of routine.

Very true and that alone highlights the utter hypocrisy of this whole ordeal. Tear gas is considered a chemical weapon if they're used during war but not if they're used during law enforcement.

Wow, seems like the fringe left is turning into a version of leftwing teabaggers.

You seem to be under the impression that anyone who disagrees with you is fringe. You are wrong. Of all the liberal opinions I've seen on this board over the last 10+ years, yours are the closest I've seen to the "lunatic left." You, Lev, are the fringe.

[The Progressive]

Well speaking of fringe views, do you still think the rebels planted the chemical attacks and the NSA fabricated the intel, awesome possum?

[lokisnow]

I'll happily take the title fringe left, i consistently post some really bonkers opinions that are pretty left-ish by American standards. ;)

[awesome possum]

Well speaking of fringe views, do you still think the rebels planted the chemical attacks and the NSA fabricated the intel, awesome possum?

What do you mean still? I've never expressed that view.

[Shryke]

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.

No, I'm pointing out that some rules of international law, the Security Council veto in particular, are not in the service of anything but the naked self-interest of the powerful.

I didn't think this was so controversial.

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

I'm pretty sure "massacring syrian civilians" is not part of any plan being drawn up. Casualties are inevitable in any military action, but of course people are gonna keep dying in different ways if nothing is done to. So it's more a matter how "which action leads to the best outcome?".

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.

I would hope the US has no intention of using chemical weapons in the future and that they would be rightly condemned if they did so. But this circles back to your earlier argument and it's still just as stupid. Past terrible actions are no excuse for future ones. I don't know why you keep acting like "why didn't someone do something earlier?" is a convincing argument to not consider doing something now.

[Merentha]

I would hope the US has no intention of using chemical weapons in the future and that they would be rightly condemned if they did so. But this circles back to your earlier argument and it's still just as stupid. Past terrible actions are no excuse for future ones. I don't know why you keep acting like "why didn't someone do something earlier?" is a convincing argument to not consider doing something now.

As mentioned, tear gas is a chemical weapon unless used by domestic law enforcement, in large part thanks to the US. Also, considering we used it heavily in Vietnam, I would be surprised if it is off the table in other situations.

edit: Slate tells me there is a standing executive order allowing its use by the military should they deem it necessary.

[Lord Mord]

shryke,

No, I'm pointing out that some rules of international law, the Security Council veto in particular, are not in the service of anything but the naked self-interest of the powerful.

I didn't think this was so controversial.

That's an excellent reason to change the law, but not for killing people and bombing the shit our of a region you then have to hang around and rebuild, the whole while loathed and mistrusted and likely more than occasionally attacked by the survivors you're ostensibly trying to help.

It seems to me that attacking people in contravention of the Security Council is the more dangerous precedent than not attacking because it's conveniently illegal to do it.

I don't know, maybe this point of view would have greater credibility among it's detractors if we didn't in other cases find convenient excuses for breaking the same laws I would now have us uphold, but I can't help that.

I can see going -- maybe -- but only with much broader support.

[Fez]

The Onion continues to be on fire

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.”