This was the right move. Though I think the vote will fail, and I think people will regret it in the future.
Okay. Huh. I'm in favor -- no, that's the wrong way to start. I'm not not in favor of action in Syria. I'm worried, with good reason, that we won't go to Syria simply because of the past two Middle East debacles. That's the wrong way to look at this decision! Every situation is unique and dismissing one option because of past failures of a different sort is a huge mistake. If the chemical weapons had been used in, to pick random examples, Chechnya, Bolivia, Serbia or Bangladesh, our approach to this would be completely different. I think it's pretty clear that Congress (and the public) are going to say no. The Brits said no. If the Brits had said yes Congress (and the public) would still probably say no. Is this right? Chemical weapons are something we pledged to oppose in every form, everywhere, 150 years ago. Actual use of chemical weapons to combat political change is in my opinion worse than suspected ties to terrorist organizations and flimsy suspected possession of nuclear capabilities. We're finally looking at history to make our decisions, which is good, and we're misreading it, which is bad.
I think this is central. We're seeing "We went to the middle east twice for bad reasons and did very bad things, and therefore should not get involved in other conflicts." when the reality is "This is genocide and we have the means to attempt to end there where we have failed to before. This is something we should do." But, I mean, we've fucked up bad. I don't blame anyone for not wanting us to enter another country. Everything we do in those situations is seemingly for the benefit and profit of men at the top at the expense of an entire country or region, but it really is something that is necessary for human rights. Let's hope (or rather, keep the government well in check to ensure) it will be handled properly...We're finally looking at history to make our decisions, which is good, and we're misreading it, which is bad.
After pledging so strongly to take action and then failing to receive British support, I think this is the President's way of backing off without looking like it. If the "strongest ally" is polling at 64% against, your prospects don't exactly look good... The other thing to consider is the precedent he's setting. Trying to move away from the Bush-era unauthorized military strikes his previous policy of using unauthorized force, such as the use of drone strikes abroad and military intervention in Libya is certainly commendable, but it's also a CYA. If Congress gives him the green light and five years down the road we're still involved, he and the Dems might be able to get away with "But Congress said it was okay!" For the wallet's sake, hopefully that's not the case, but you can never be too sure. Anyway, it's certainly adhering more to the spirit of the Constitutional powers, i.e. no war without Congressional approval, but whether or not that was his true and sole intent is in doubt.
I'd like to remind you that Congress did approve the Iraq invasion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution
From where I sit it seems the motivation to go to congress is entirely a CYA move. This president acts unilaterally when it suits him. cliffelam what are your thoughts?
I think Secretary Kerry said it best in his speech -- Americans are tired of war. I understand the moral obligation. It is not acceptable to allow people to die the way they did. At the same time, I am tired of war. And we have enough problems in the U.S. to take care of. Fueling the military-industrial complex again is not high on the priority list. Passing off the decision to Congress makes Obama look wishy-washy. Who cares. Let the people speak up. Let them call their Representatives and Senators to express support or disapproval of a strike. If Americans say no to action in Syria, despite the overwhelming evidence of genocide, perhaps this is the penance we pay for going into Iraq under false pretenses.
>It is not acceptable to allow people to die the way they did. To me this just seems like tacit endorsement of killing people with machine guns and cruise missiles instead.
Then why have we been allowing Assad and the rebels to kill each other with machine guns and rockets?
The same reason we do not crack down on our own citizens killing each other (or innocents) in the streets? The same reason we're slow to act when children are gunned down in school shootings? I wish I had a solution. I don't. Whether I call my congressional leader to say support or don't support Syria, nothing is going to change. Humanity has to change. Aside from being friendly, peaceful to whomever I may encounter, I kind of feel like everything else is really out of my control. So, as I said to someone I recently encountered who did not speak English well (and considering my Spanish is poor), "A smile says a lot."
There are a couple differences between machine guns and chemical weapons. Chemical weapons can very effectively murder masses of people, all while the people using them can be out of harms way with gas masks and such. And they are cheap. The manner of death is extremely painful and torturous. Reportedly they are using Sarin Gas in Syria - "Like other nerve agents, sarin attacks the nervous system. It stops nerve endings in muscles from switching off. Death will usually occur as a result of asphyxia due to the inability of the muscles involved in breathing to function" Chemicals can also effect a wider range of people and do so over an extended period of time. Some chemical weapons cause cancer, which may not be apparent for many many years. Yes, machine guns can injure without killing as well, but don't have the same lasting effects as chemical weapons do. Because of this chemical weapons are considered more of a torture device than tradition guns/rockets/ammo are. Conventional weapons, like rockets and machine guns, are still traditionally thought of as military tools. They can kill civilians as well, but the long standing ways of war (which are slowly changing) place them in a category of military vs military, not military vs civilians. The chemical warfare that we are seeing in Syria is military vs civilians and shows extreme callousness, and seen as something that should be dealt with immediately. The fact that they are openly targeting civilians with chemical weapons is not a problem between political or military opponents, but is wiping out civilians. This opens a bunch of doors because traditionally wars should be to sort out issues, resolve matters, etc etc. The civilians should stay out of harms way as much as possible so that once a resolution arises, they are able to be alive and healthy to kickstart the economy, return to daily life etc. While there are always civilian casualties in wars, the nature of chemical weapons changes the world's view and outlook on what is being accomplished in Syria. A bit of a messy slew of thoughts, hope this helps explain a bit. I'm not an advocate for any type of violence, chemical or machine guns, but this is why the media and political shitstorm is happening over the chemicals rather than the machine guns.
"Chemical weapons can very effectively murder masses of people, all while the people using them can be out of harms way with gas masks and such." Cruise missiles can very effectively murder masses of people, all the while the people using them are safe on a boat in the middle of the sea. "Chemicals can also effect a wider range of people and do so over an extended period of time. Some chemical weapons cause cancer, which may not be apparent for many many years." Depleted uranium rounds effect a wider range of people and do so over an extended period of time. They cause cancer and birth defects, which are often not apparent for many years. "The chemical warfare that we are seeing in Syria is military vs civilians" All the warfare we are seeing in Syria is military vs. civilian. It is a civil war.
You're absolutely right. I'm just making some observations to try to shed light on why we suddenly political leaders around the globe are ready to step in and the media is having a field day with the 24/7 coverage. I think what it comes down to is the perceived difference between the two, rather than the actual difference.
I find it so interesting that it is Secretary Kerry pushing this. At some point today I want to sit down and watch his entire testimony on Vietnam War as a member of Vietnam Veterans Against the War
Yeah, and the situation is incredibly complicated... so what would happen if we did go to war? Which side do we support? Do we stay until the country is stable? Is this another ten year commitment?
Without trying to stir an ideological hornets nest, did you see Oliver Stone's "Untold History of the United States"? Whether you agree or disagree with Stone's presentation, his thesis was very spot-on. Simply put, the United States has become so entangled in international affairs that the decisions we make always result in long-term blowback. Until citizens start demanding its leaders to avoid unilateral policies, the cycle will perpetuate. Americans could have never predicted Jimmy Carter's funding of the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan and George H.W. Bush's alliance with the Saudi government in the Gulf War would have led to the blowback of Sept. 11. Perhaps non-action in Syria -- as terrible as the situation is -- breaks this repetition of entanglement. Maybe it allows the U.S. to reconsider its position in the world as it is, allowing the opportunities to strengthen itself through productive, non-violent means.
President Teh W0n votes .. present. I'm hoping that he loses the vote or they merely decide NOT to vote - because it will continue to hurt his international standing. That's where I am with him these days. In my wildest fantasies he loses the vote and goes ahead and makes the strike - which he says he has the right to do. Then congress impeaches him. That would be delicious. Total Washington gridlock. Plus then his inner circle will document dump on the Hildebeast. Win for everyone, really. -XC
I agree with the "votes...present" bit. There's a huge difference between thoughtful deliberation, which I think we lacked in our previous administration, and indecision. Obama seems to be indecisive based on what is or is not popular as opposed to what is and is not right. Convictions are necessary in the oval office. GWB didn't share mine, BO doesn't seem to have any. I almost prefer the former.
What role does the public play in your worldview?Obama seems to be indecisive based on what is or is not popular as opposed to what is and is not right. Convictions are necessary in the oval office. GWB didn't share mine, BO doesn't seem to have any. I almost prefer the former.
Can you be more specific in your question? I'm happy to try and answer it.
Your criticism is he is indecisive based on what is or is not popular, as in looking to the public (via congress?) before engaging in military action abroad. So, what should the actual involvement of the public or congress be? Should the President take action according to his convictions and dictate to the rest of the country? I don't think anything is going on in Syria that warrants emergency action, personally, but I'm open ears.
There should be a distinction between the public and congress imo. We send our representatives there to govern, not to take a poll of what is popular at the moment and then govern off of that. What if 80% of the country was against entering Europe during WWII? Ideally, our congress is composed of men and women that are more intelligent and capable than the average of our citizenry. If not, then god help us. Have you taken a look at the average citizen? Turn on your TV, the programming there is a result of what appeals to them. I don't think the President should look to the populace for guidance on issues. This is what elections are for. Only congress can "declare war" so it's right to seek their approval. We have only had 5 such approvals though, it's my understanding that Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq and many other conflicts we have termed "war" are actually termed "Military Engagements." -These still seek the approval of congress though.
Pffff, the klown koledge in the white house makes the GWB guys look like, well, an adult administration. Take a look at how GWB handled the run-up to Afganistan and Iraq - 30+ countries signed up on each, especially heavily weighted towards NATO allies and middle-eastern countries. Versus what we saw in Libya and Syria. Remember how startled we were when Turkey wouldn't let us stage and invade into Iraq? Would that surprise ANYONE today? I won't even go into Fast and Furious, Benghazi, the disastrous disposition of forces agreement with Iraq, the "reset button" with Russia, etc. Like someone said seven years ago: Best case is the Carter administration. Looking that way. -XC
Extraordinarily constructive viewpoints!I'm hoping that he loses the vote or they merely decide NOT to vote - because it will continue to hurt his international standing.
Then congress impeaches him. That would be delicious. Total Washington gridlock.
I believe that what is bad for the Westboro Baptist church is good for America.
I believe that what is bad for David Duke is good for American.
I believe that what is bad for Al Quaeda is good for America.
I believe that what is good for free speech worldwide is good for America.
I believe that what is good for freedom of religion worldwide is good for America.
I believe that cheap energy is good for poor people worldwide.
I believe that technology holds tremendous possibilities for poor people to live better lives. These are all constructive viewpoints and logically and epistemologically equivalent to my first statement - though stated more simply. You simply might agree with them more. These are all constructive viewpoints as they stake out a clear position. -XC PS - I have a two reply rule on the internet (!mcnc!oldfart) so this is all I got on this.