|
Obama administration swooshing to war in Syria?
Sorry - did I say "War" in the thread title? Silly me - that would require an actual debate and vote by Congress, which would give those unpatriotic peace-hugging commies a soapbox to spout their subversive drivel. Correction: I meant "satanic-evil-fighting surgically precise military intervention with Holy laser-guided munitions possessing submillimeter-level precision and 100% guaranteed to hit only Evil targets" - yes, that sounds much better.
---------- Not that I'm any kind of fan of Assad-the-younger, but he's never given me the impression that he's an idiot. So, knowing full well that the U.S. is itching for an excuse to "intervene militarily" and thus conveniently provide a welcome distraction from domestic spying scandals and Obama's waning popularity, he decides to use chemical weapons in a big way? Riiiiiiiiight... All we're missing is some truly outrageously lurid pro-war propaganda like the infamous Iraq/Kuwait [url=en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nayirah_(testimony)]babies-ripped-from-incubators-and-left-to-die[/url] pack of lies, as told by a theatrically weeping young women who was allegedly witness to said atrocity and who was only revealed after the war to be none other than the daughter of the then-Kuwaiti-ambassador-to-the-U.S., the latter fact having been carefully covered up at the time to protect the innocent, or something. No - the most-plausible rationale for U.S. military action I have seen is [i] Snowden who? Look over here! War! Shiny![/i] Mish has an excellent roundup of articles on this matter in [url=http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2013/08/is-obama-another-bush-clone-another.html]Is Obama Another Bush Clone? Another Nixon Clone?[/url] I found the snip from the 1946 jail-cell interview with Hermann "der Fettwanst" Göring especially telling: [i] Oh, [democracy and the alleged 'will of the people'] is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.[/i] |
Violence/war is always the easy way.
also , allow me to qiote Isaac Asimov "Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent." |
[QUOTE=firejuggler;351049]Violence/war is always the easy way.
also , allow me to qiote Isaac Asimov "Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent."[/QUOTE] Not to mention, often profitable.... |
[QUOTE=firejuggler;351049]Violence/war is always the easy way.
also , allow me to qiote Isaac Asimov "Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent."[/QUOTE] So, Assad would have taken that refuge? Once, someone attacks someone that is not fully able to defend themselves, it is generally considered honourable to come to the aid of the victim.:surrender |
[QUOTE=Uncwilly;351051]So, Assad would have taken that refuge? Once, someone attacks someone that is not fully able to defend themselves, it is generally considered honourable to come to the aid of the victim.:surrender:[/QUOTE]
I don't disagree. But tell that to the Russians and Chinese, at least one of whom have allegedly been selling arms to Syria and both have veto votes in the UN Security Counsel.... |
I don't think Obama is rushing toward anything. From what I've heard (my source of news has never done any speculating as far as I can tell; they've only ever retracted things they've said when the "facts" have changed), some armed force, NATO, presumably, is ready to go whenever Obama says so but a spokesperson from Washington said that they're very carefully considering a number of things, including collateral damage and loss of innocent life, and perhaps as or more importantly, will a precision strike accomplish anything? Blowing up the chemical weapons stores would be a good idea, but even then, people unknowingly or forcibly working at those facilities will also die.
One consideration of mine would be this, and I invite any Americans to answer. Would you feel as proudly about the American Revolution if space aliens had come out of the sky and won that war for you? Syria IS undergoing its own revolution, and I think the rest of the world should lend a helping hand, but only to the innocent. Anyone who is harming them should be brought to justice, but to add nine american troops for every one rebel isn't the way to do it. For one, people (like some who may be lingering here) who think that the Americans are just looking for someone to shoot at will think of this as their "Oooh let's go to war" thing. For two, this really isn't anyone else's fight. Not between military and rebels, anyway. I think the OP is a bit ahead of himself claiming that Obama is licking his chops at an opportunity to fight a war... |
Claiming that Obama is [I]rushing[/I] to war (*snort*) ignores that most commentators agree that Obama's been doing everything he can to [I]avoid[/I] war.
... unless maybe the OP's definition of [I]war[/I] includes every instance of hostile military action, which would trivialize the meaning of "war" ... like "War on Terror" did. - - - Congress's gradual (since WW2) abdication of responsibility in granting the President such leniency in directing military action against other countries as he now has, is another matter. |
[QUOTE=cheesehead;351067]Claiming that Obama is [I]rushing[/I] to war (*snort*) ignores that [u]most commentators agree that Obama's been doing everything he can to [I]avoid[/I] war[/u].[/QUOTE]
...For which claim your supporting evidence consists of...? C'mon, Mr. "Nature of Evidence" - show us something to back up your underlined claim, which consists of more than snorty textual sound effects. |
[QUOTE=ewmayer;351075]...For which claim your supporting evidence consists of...? C'mon, Mr. "Nature of Evidence" - show us something to back up your underlined claim, which consists of more than snorty textual sound effects.[/QUOTE]
This is akin to me saying that there are 500-foot tall rainbow sheep on the moon who eat cotton candy ladybugs the size of school buses; to which you simply snort and say As If; to which I tell you to stop snorting and give me proof that there [I]are not[/I]. Obama [I]rushing[/I] to war is [B]your[/B] claim and as such presenting proof is [B]your[/B] job. Ja? |
[QUOTE=ewmayer;351075][QUOTE=cheesehead;351067]Claiming that Obama is [I]rushing[/I] to war (*snort*) ignores that [U]most commentators agree that Obama's been doing everything he can to [I]avoid[/I] war.[/U][/QUOTE]...For which claim your supporting evidence consists of...?[/QUOTE]A reasonable retort ... but as TheMawn points out, you made [I]your[/I] evidenceless claim first.
[quote]C'mon, Mr. "Nature of Evidence" - show us something to back up your underlined claim, which consists of more than snorty textual sound effects.[/quote]As a matter of fact, I heard most of those commentators on radio, so their comments [I]could[/I] be termed sound effects. I have no audio recordings of those (although some may actually be available somewhere on-line). (Furthermore, my "underlined claim" is by no means in the category of sincere substantial claim with which my "Nature of Evidence" was concerned.) A sincere search for evidence of comments on Obama's approach (or not) to war would probably reveal lots of noise on all sides. One man's [I]rush[/I] could be another man's [I]tiptoe[/I]. - - - Some folks are concerned by signs of a potential larger Mideast conflict. Roger Boyes cites lessons from history, which I particularly respect: "Fears of a Larger War in the Middle East" [URL]http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/newsmakers/fears-larger-war-middle-east-180559605.html?vp=1[/URL] [quote]Will the phrase “Guns of August” one day refer not only to the prelude to World War I in 1914 but also to the prelude to a Middle East war in 2013? That is the ominous question posed by Roger Boyes, the diplomatic editor of the Times of London and a foreign correspondent for the past 35 years. “The direction of events in Egypt, Syria, Iraq and Iran should keep us awake at night. History is taking a dangerous turn,” he writes. “The region certainly cannot sustain two wars — Syria’s bloody insurgency and a near-civil war in Egypt — without wrecking established peace treaties and the normal mechanisms for defusing conflict.” I sat down with Boyes in our London newsroom. He acknowledged that the conflicts coursing through a half-dozen Middle Eastern countries did not come from a single source, nor did they stem from a single reason. But he feared the problems were becoming intractable and were spreading across state borders: “the new Sunni assertiveness, the rise of the jihad, the influence of the Muslim Brotherhood not only in Egypt but in every Arab society.” And Boyes warned that, as in August 1914, the world was not paying enough attention. “In August 1914 there was a lot of grouse shooting going on. In August 2013, politicians prefer to read doorstopper biographies in Tuscany and Cornwall. Yet the spreading Middle East crisis, its multiple flashpoints, is every bit as ominous as the prelude to war in 1914.” . . .[/quote]- - - BTW, many of the borders of Mideast countries, which most of us have during our lifetimes probably assumed as long-established by those countries, were in fact drawn only as recently as the aftermath of World War 1 ... by Western powers, not by the inhabitants of those areas. |
[QUOTE=cheesehead;351104][SNIP]
BTW, many of the borders of Mideast countries, which most of us have during our lifetimes probably assumed as long-established by those countries, were in fact drawn only as recently as the aftermath of World War 1 ... by Western powers, not by the inhabitants of those areas.[/QUOTE] And therein lies many a conflict. Of course, this leaves aside a change in borders which was engineered at the end of WWII, and has sustained even greater conflict since. |
[QUOTE=kladner;351145]And therein lies many a conflict. Of course, this leaves aside a change in borders which was engineered at the end of WWII, and has sustained even greater conflict since.[/QUOTE]
And some wonder (or perhaps leverage upon) why some are pissed off.... |
[QUOTE=cheesehead;351104]A reasonable retort ... but as TheMawn points out, you made [I]your[/I] evidenceless claim first.[/QUOTE]
Ah, but Cheesiepoofs, there is a crucial distinction - I made my OP in the form of an obvious opinion with supporting logic, whereas your "most" claim sounded very much like an assertion-as-fact. But thanks for the clarification - so "your subjective impression is that most commentators..." The reason the above distinction is so crucial here is that all of the U.S. claims of "proof the Assad regime used chemical weapons" I have seen to date use similarly misleading wording-as-if-of-indisputable-fact, which have been dutifully parroted by the US MSM establishment, which apparently abrogated its responsibility to ask critical questions of those in power some decades ago. I await actual independently verifiable evidence of such claims. I consider, I think quite reasonably, any military intervention absent both such evidence and some form of independent verification thereof, as a "rush to war". Anyone who disagrees with that stance needs to explain why "WMDs in Iraq - take our word for it" was a rush to war, but "Chemical weapons used by Assad - take our word for it" is allegedly not. |
[QUOTE=ewmayer;351171]Ah, but Cheesiepoofs, there is a crucial distinction - I made my OP in the form of an obvious opinion with supporting logic, whereas your "most" claim sounded very much like an assertion-as-fact.[/QUOTE]
Just wondering ewmayer... Is it possible to press the "reset button"? Is it possible to stop killing people to find a solution? |
[QUOTE=chalsall;351172]Is it possible to stop killing people to find a solution?[/QUOTE]
Not for the warmongers and associated profiteers who actually run the US government. |
[QUOTE=ewmayer;351176]Not for the warmongers and associated profiteers who actually run the US government.[/QUOTE]
Can you prove that? |
[QUOTE=chalsall;351177]Can you prove that?[/QUOTE]
Proof in the mathematical sense, no; but my evidence for it is at least as strong - IMO quite a bit more so - than that the Obama administration has presented so far to make the case for [strike]war[/strike] pro-democratic surgical intervention in Syria. That is not an assertion I make lightly ... it is backed by a detailed "follow the money" argument which could fill volumes, but is deeply entwined with the financial/economic issues the MET threads have been devoted to these past 5+ years. A good starting point is to ask yourself the question, "how does the US fund its immensely bloated defense/national-security apparatus?" To save time for the rest of the readership, the short answer is "massive debt issuance" - now, which major entities, public and private, are the key players in that? Once you have a list, compare it to the commonly compiled lists of "systemically important financial institutions" [a.k.a. TBTF banks], and follow the revolving door between those and governmental-side debt financing apparatus, and the trail of campaign financing which follows the major players in that "public/private partnership." Do you think it is mere accident that the top-donor lists for (say) McCain and Obama in 2008, or Obama and Romney in 2012, had a rather remarkable amount of overlap? Or that a young state senator named Obama had much early campaign financing and connection-forging help from a fellow named Robert Rubin, who mysteriously appears in key roles in multiple recent administrations? Or that newly-elected president Obama picked a set of top economic advisors which was more or less indistiguishable from that of his predecessor? Or that both of the oh-so-distinct political parties in DC pay lip service to "fiscal discipline" [albeit with different emphases] but seem profoundly unwilling to actually take the measures needed to slow the flood of red ink? -------------- [i]Edit:[/i] And, in a remarkable parallel with what candidate Obama had to say about domestic spying in 2007-2008 and what he is saying about the same issue now, check out [url=http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-08-28/here%E2%80%99s-what-candidate-obama-said-about-military-intervention-2007]Here’s What Candidate Obama Said About Military Intervention In 2007[/url]. |
[QUOTE=ewmayer;351187][i]Edit:[/i] And, in a remarkable parallel with what candidate Obama had to say about domestic spying in 2007-2008 and what he is saying about the same issue now, check out [url=http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-08-28/here%E2%80%99s-what-candidate-obama-said-about-military-intervention-2007]Here’s What Candidate Obama Said About Military Intervention In 2007[/url].[/QUOTE]
I don't disagree. What a sad world we live in.... |
[QUOTE=ewmayer;351171]I made my OP in the form of an obvious opinion with supporting logic,[/QUOTE]... so you implicitly admit that you presented no supporting [I]evidence[/I] ...
... and, look as I may, I don't see even your [I]claimed[/I] "supporting logic"! You gave _no_ logic to support your title assertion that Obama is rushing to war. [quote]whereas your "most" claim sounded very much like an assertion-as-fact.[/quote]But that's what you did! You learned that from Karl Rove (Accuse the opposition of doing what you're doing)? [quote]The reason the above distinction[/quote][U]But there is no actual distinction![/U] Your OP is just [I]assertion-as-fact[/I], with no supporting evidence OR supporting logic! [quote]is so crucial here is[/quote]- - Folks, Notice how Ernst claims that a [I]nonexisting[/I] "distinction" is "[U]crucial[/U]" here! [I]Oh, wait -- now that I'm, once again, pointing out the logic holes in one of Ernst's political claims, he's going to ban my post to a different thread with some demeaning title because he prefers banning and assigning my post(s) a demeaning title (and using a belittling nickname in referring to me in his post above, as has been his custom when he wants readers not to pay serious attention to my criticism) instead of honestly admitting, and correcting, the flaws I've just pointed out. (Watch Ernst claim that my post was off-topic in some way, to justify his moderator action.)[/I] So, what is "crucial" to Ernst's argument, [I]according to Ernst himself[/I] ... doesn't exist! |
[QUOTE=cheesehead;351202]So, what is "crucial" to Ernst's argument, [I]according to Ernst himself[/I] ... doesn't exist![/QUOTE]
Meanwhile, people are dying.... Edit: And many more likely will before this game is over. |
You've done well in this thread Richard. I tried to quote a bunch of posts and add commentary but it was too long and too hard. You made some good points and everyone has made good contributions to this thread. The distinctions drawn between facts and opinions sharpened the dialogue and had a positive result in drawing in supplementary information. Your comment about borders was good too. In short (too late), well done.
Here is an interesting letter in the newspaper that has been floating around the intertubes today (attributions in link): [url]https://plus.google.com/103389452828130864950/posts/czD95r9Jp7b[/url] [QUOTE][B]A short guide to the Middle East[/B] [I]From Mr KN Al-Sabah.[/I] Sir, Iran is backing Assad. Gulf states are against Assad! Assad is against Muslim Brotherhood. Muslim Brotherhood and Obama are against General Sisi. But Gulf states are pro-Sisi! Which means they are against Muslim Brotherhood! Iran is pro-Hamas, but Hamas is backing Muslim Brotherhood! Obama is backing Muslim Brotherhood, yet Hamas is against the US! Gulf states are pro-US. But Turkey is with Gulf states against Assad; yet Turkey is pro-Muslim Brotherhood against General Sisi. And General Sisi is being backed by the Gulf states! Welcome to the Middle East and have a nice day. [B]K N Al-Sabah, London EC4, UK[/B][/QUOTE] |
[QUOTE=ewmayer;351187]That is not an assertion I make lightly ... it is backed by a detailed "follow the money" argument which could fill volumes, but is deeply entwined with the financial/economic issues the MET threads [/QUOTE]
This is all a bit too much conspiracy theory for me. Why do banksters and other well-connected businessmen need to start a war to make money? As you've detailed in the MET thread, they already have a backdoor into the Federal Reserve, they've got enough politicians in their pockets to legalize any number of ripoffs of the average consumer. How much profit do you see being made on 3 days worth of cruise missles? |
[QUOTE=chalsall;351210][QUOTE=cheesehead;351202]So, what is "crucial" to Ernst's argument, [I]according to Ernst himself[/I] ... doesn't exist![/QUOTE]
Meanwhile, people are dying.... Edit: And many more likely will before this game is over.[/QUOTE]Let me try to clarify what I have, and have not, been trying to get at with my posts #7, 10 and 19: A. [I]I'm not trying to claim that Ernst's assertions about the Obama administration are false.[/I] I'm just demonstrating that certain claims Ernst makes about evidence and logic supporting his argument have holes. Ernst is quite capable of showing you actual evidence and sound logic; I wish he would simply do that instead of attacking me when I point out that he hasn't shown you what he should. B. I conceded Ernst's reasonable retort about evidence for my first post. I also tried to signal that I wasn't claiming my post had more evidential support than his, and I didn't want to pursue that subject further. C. Ernst then (post #13) tried to deceive this thread's readers by: (1) falsely claiming that his OP claim had more support than it actually did. (Note that Ernst did not try to bolster his claim [I]by actually quoting his own words from the OP that would have constituted supporting evidence and logic, in order to demonstrate that my criticism had been inaccurate[/I], which would have been an obvious step for him to take if my criticism had actually been wrong!) and (2) employing a belittlement tactic that he's used on me in the past, which he may be doing to try to persuade this thread's readers not to give serious attention to my criticism of Ernst. [I]Note: I'm not complaining about the attempted belittlement per se; I'm complaining about Ernst's use of it to try to deceive his readers. I'm calling it to readers' attention so they can recognize where Ernst has done that in the past, also.[/I] D. I think Ernst needs to learn to accept criticism about holes in his politically-oriented attacks, and then just repair those holes -- without employing an [I]ad hominem[/I] attack on his critic. If Ernst, in post #13, had simply shown us supporting evidence for his OP (setting aside the matter of whether such evidence had been [I]in[/I] the OP), then it would have made sense subsequently to contrast that to the administration's lack of provided evidence. But Ernst couldn't resist getting in more shots at me instead of simply presenting evidence, which left himself in the unfortunate position of claiming that a nonexistent distinction was "crucial" to his argument. |
[QUOTE=cheesehead;351220]Let me try to clarify what I have, and have not, been trying to get at with my posts #7, 10 and 19:[/QUOTE][SIZE="1"]Did I encourage this bromance? There is no clarity needed. Just accept props for the positive aspects, take a nice sigh of relaxation and browse the world for fresh insights to bring into the thread moving it forward.[/SIZE]
In other news, [URL="http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/28/us-syria-crisis-britain-parliament-idUSBRE97R19220130828"]Britain pushes back Syria chemical attack response timetable[/URL].[QUOTE]An amendment tabled by the Labour Party said it would support military action only if members of the U.N. Security Council saw the inspectors' report first, among other conditions.[/QUOTE]This is mildly encouraging. |
Rushing to war is indeed something I would not dare to say to anyone in Syria itself.
There is no civil war in Syria, and there is no 'Arab spring' in Syria like there was in Tunesia. This is a war between Iran and Saudi-Arabia, Syria is only the battle ground. Iran has been trying to encircle Saudi-Arabia using Yemen, Sudan, the Gaza strip (controlling the Sinai desert) and Iraq and attacking it. The Saudis stopped asking the West for help and acted themselves when Bahrein got stirred up by the ayatollahs. Syria was their best option for curbing Iranian influence. Syria has an 85% Sunni population whereas every single action over there is controlled by Shi'a Iran. From Syria Iran also controls Lebanon where Hizb'allah represents a tiny fraction of the Lebanese people yet wields most of the power. Fast forward to these days. There are many factions and countries fighting in Syria. Among them a very large contingent of highly trained Iranian Revolutionary guards and the about 5.000 Basiji. The Basiji are Iranian thugs selected by their government normally to control the Iranian people. They are not well trained or armed, but they don't need to be since they are only used to conrol areas where potential unrest needs to be curbed beforehand. You don't want them in your neighborhood. Saudi-Arabia and Qatar have hired their own troops from elsewhere, like they did in Afghanistan during the Sovjet occupation. Not something we fancy over here. There are also many factions of the Syrian people fighting to protect their tribal ground, they are generally the closest to our Western liking and the best hope for future stability in a so diverse population. Since the conflict spilled over to countries like Jordan and others the Obama government and some European and Arab allies started to train Syrian people for the battle in Syria to fight against the Alawite (Assad) - Iranian troops and curb the influence of Al-Nusra (Al-Qaida) as a side effect. About 500 of these troops entered Syria from Jordan a few days before the Syrian government, after consultation with Iran (like every move), answered with poison gas attacks against the Sunni population and Grad missile attacks on Israel from Lebanon by Jihad Islami (another Iranian controlled group). The 500 troops had started to shift the balance a little and Assad correctly understood that a further growth of this force threatened his remaining reign over the country. The gas and the rocket attacks are his 'double or quits' approach to prevent his forces from being pushed back for certain over a period of time. A fast all out war has better prospects for him since it would have to be fought by US and European allies in front of their voters who don't understand the Middle East and don't want to be involved. Also the UN would have to give some kind of mandate which the Russian ally can prevent or wear down. The orders to use poison gas were given out in the open so much as to declare responsibility as a way of defying the Western attempts to influence the outcome of the battle between Iran and Saudi-Arabia. As a European citizen I applaud the US president for taking responsibility to defend the Syrian people's aspiration to more freedom they ever had since Hafez al Assad took power more than 40 years ago. Even if geopolitical motivations govern his decisions. |
The immediate top article jump from the front page of the UK Huffingtonpost is "WHERE THE WORLD STANDS ON SYRIA," which jumps to this article: [URL="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/28/international-syria-intervention_n_3829832.html"]In Considering Syria Strike, Ghosts Of Past Interventions Haunt World Powers[/URL]. It is a good survey of what countries are saying and doing about Syria. One thing:[QUOTE]While Europeans and North Americans debate the consequences of military action from the relative comfort of geographic remove, Tunisians -- already within the orbit of Syria's bloody civil war and the broader conflagration in much of the Arab world -- are reacting with a mixture of concern and confusion.
An estimated 2,000 Tunisians have left for jihad in the Syrian conflict, and the nation has apparently inherited dozens of jihadist fighters fleeing the strife in Mali. Arms smuggling is thriving, thanks to networks in neighboring Libya. The crackdown on the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt could send underground members to join active Islamic militant networks in the Sahel desert.[/QUOTE] |
[QUOTE=cheesehead;351220](2) employing a belittlement tactic that he's used on me in the past, which he may be doing to try to persuade this thread's readers not to give serious attention to my criticism of Ernst.[/QUOTE]Speaking only for myself, I have to say that your lengthy, not to say tedious, point by point attention to every single perceived wrong is much, much more likely to persuade me to give up reading your posts whether or not they deserve serious attention than are Ernst's tactics.
Again, only IMO, your readership is more likely to pay attention if you drop some of the less productive rejoinders and edit the remainder for brevity. I've probably already typed too much, so let's leave it there. Paul |
[QUOTE=xilman;351237]I've probably already typed too much, so let's leave it there.[/QUOTE]
As the saying goes, "Less is more. |
“Brvty is t' sistr of talent,” as [URL="http://quotabl.es/quotes/36125"]A.Chekhov[/URL] could have said.
|
[QUOTE=Prime95;351218]How much profit do you see being made on 3 days worth of cruise missles?[/QUOTE]
At [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cruise_missile"]estimates of USD $1.4M each (2011 costs)[/URL], possibly quite a bit... |
In the voice of Laurie Anderson...
"Ring... Ring... Ring... "Hello? "This is the West. Are we speaking to President Bashar al-Assad? "Ah. Yes... "You might want to clear your airport's runways.... |
[QUOTE=Prime95;351218]This is all a bit too much conspiracy theory for me. Why do banksters and other well-connected businessmen need to start a war to make money? As you've detailed in the MET thread, they already have a backdoor into the Federal Reserve, they've got enough politicians in their pockets to legalize any number of ripoffs of the average consumer. How much profit do you see being made on 3 days worth of cruise missles?[/QUOTE]
For the bankster-cartels it's not so much warmongering per se - that is still the province of the classic MIC - as keeping the debt spigots open as wide as possible, and adding new capacity whenever possible. Like the white-hat banker says in [i]The International[/i], the business model of modern banking (and I doubt this was a modern innovation, perhaps mainly the degree is what has changed) is debt slavery. Sure, you make a lot of money from day-to-day consumer financial rape, but why limit yourself to nickling-and-diming - relatively speaking - Joe and Jill Sixpack when you can greatly supplement both your income and your political influence via sovereign-debt financing on a truly massive, whole-GDP kind of scale? For your typical megabank-top-exec, however much you're making now, it can never be enough. Consider the relative sizes of debt in play here: Total consumer [url=http://www.foxbusiness.com/personal-finance/2013/07/08/average-credit-card-debt-take-your-pick/]revolving debt[/url] - which includes but is not limited to credit card debt - is slightly less than $1 trillion. Even with the [url=http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/27/student-loan-debt-cripple-young-americans]unprecedented ramp-age in recent years[/url] of student-loan debt, total outstanding student debt currently totals $1.2 trillion. In other words each of those "total present accumulations" of debt is in the same ballpark as current *annual* net debt issuance by Uncle Sam. So, in the case of the megabanks, my argument is not that they have a specific interest in war, but rather that governments' need to borrow for such things leads to a kind of "self-organizing conspiracy", if you will, for which the motive force is deficit financing. [i]Aside:[/i] On the specific topic of money-for-war, that is a fascinating subject in its own right. History is replete with examples of financiers-to-warmongering who gained inordinate wealth and power thereby. |
[QUOTE=cheesehead;351067]Congress's gradual (since WW2) abdication of responsibility in granting the President such leniency in directing military action against other countries as he now has, is another matter.[/QUOTE]
"Does Obama need congressional approval to bomb Syria?" [URL]http://news.yahoo.com/does-obama-need-congressional-approval-to-bomb-syria--174613463.html[/URL] [quote]If President Barack Obama chooses to unilaterally launch a military attack against Syria in retaliation for the government's alleged use of chemical weapons against civilians last week, he is certain to face criticism that he's overstepping his executive authority. The president has already run up against resistance from some members of Congress, who argue that under the 1973 War Powers Resolution and the U.S. Constitution he must seek the body’s full approval before taking military action against the country. The disagreement is part of a larger and thorny constitutional and legal argument over how far Congress can go to check the chief executive's war powers and what types of military actions constitute war. . . . The U.S. involvement in Kosovo, the Korean War and other conflicts all began without a congressional vote. The last official declaration of war by Congress was for World War II, as the power to use force has gradually shifted away from Congress and toward the chief executive. The Constitution does not require the president even to have a good reason to attack another country, Yoo said. But other scholars disagree with Yoo’s interpretation and think a unilateral strike on Syria without congressional authorization will constitute a legal gray area. Harvard Law School professor Jack Goldsmith [URL="http://www.lawfareblog.com/2013/08/why-doesnt-president-obama-seek-congressional-approval-for-syria/"]wrote on Wednesday that “the use of military force in Syria is a constitutional stretch[/URL] that will push presidential war unilateralism beyond where it has gone before.” . . . Meanwhile, there’s the issue of whether an attack on Syria would be legal under international law. . . .[/quote] |
The British government has just lost the vote in the lower house of parliament, and can no longer consider taking part in an attack on any part of Syria.
This is major political news in Britain, though it will mean little to the victims of the civil war in Syria itself. |
[QUOTE=cheesehead;351292]"Does Obama need congressional approval to bomb Syria?"
[URL]http://news.yahoo.com/does-obama-need-congressional-approval-to-bomb-syria--174613463.html[/URL][/QUOTE] Ah, yes. John "It's not really torture" Yoo. I still want to get his opinion of waterboarding after he has experienced it at least half a dozen times. It should be once for every time for every prisoner tortured that way after he delivered his contorted excuse for a legal opinion. Suffice it to say that I take any opinion of his as good reason to do something different, if not the exact opposite. |
[QUOTE=kladner;351298]Suffice it to say that I take any opinion of his as good reason to do something different, if not the exact opposite.[/QUOTE]I agree.
|
So following the hallowed traditions of "It's not really torture" leading to "Well, even if it is torture, it's ok" and "It's not really war"..., now we have "Action must be taken" and the desire to "Send a message" but to Russia and China, and Iran it needs to not really be action but rather a polite request to the milkman that he leave the bottles where they won't be tripped over, while Syria will magically align with rainbows and ponies and the rest of the world will thank the kind uncle who straightened all this out.
|
[url]http://theoatmeal.com/comics/syria[/url]
Meanwhile on forums everywhere is heard the cry "Obama rushes headlong into action in Syrian conflict!" |
I do not believe that there are any virtuous players in Syria. I don't think the interested parties outside of Syria have true humanitarian motivations.
However, I have yet to see evidence of Obama himself "rushing" into anything. Of course, Biden has been pontificating about it, which might fall into the "trial balloon" category. Who knows? Much as I despise Assad, I don't think he's stupid. I think he would be quite aware of how the use of chemical weapons would bring more forces to bear against him. I also think that some of his opponents would be equally aware of these potential repercussions, and might well see fit to try to bring them about. I heard Robert Siegel of NPR talk with Republican Representative Mike J. Rogers, chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, yesterday. You can read the [URL="http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=216538266"]transcript[/URL]. There were some key exchanges in which I thought Rep Rogers was clearly dodging around direct answers. [QUOTE]SIEGEL: But, first, is there evidence that nerve agent, not just some toxic or fatal substance, but nerve agent or sarin gas was used? ROGERS: Well, I can tell you that there are still some forensic evidence review under way to determine exactly what it is, but it is very clear that it was a chemical agent of some nature. SIEGEL: Is it clear that it was delivered by some system, say, a rocket, something that only the Syrian government and not the rebels would have? ROGERS: Well, it's clear by the size and scope of it and, again, with the other evidence that we have that the regime was involved in the delivery of this particular chemical agent. SIEGEL: But when we say the evidence that we have, we're not talking yet about a crater being identified that was where the rocket struck or fragments of the rocket? ROGERS: Well, there is multiple ways that they can deliver a chemical weapon like this.[/QUOTE] In the end, it seemed to me that Rep Rogers' real aim was to say that the president "drew a red line" and has risked "US credibility" by not following through. I am encouraged that the British Parliament put the kibosh on participation in any adventure. I hope the US follows that example. We know too little of what is really happening, who is doing it, and who we might be helping if we get involved. I am sick at heart for those of the Syrian people who are just trying to survive. I don't think tossing more bombs or other weapons into the mix is going to help them. Rather, it will only result in more death for Syrians, and more hatred of the US in the region. We in the States have nothing to gain and much to lose by getting involved. |
[QUOTE=kladner;351315]We in the States have nothing to gain and much to lose by getting involved.[/QUOTE]A lot gets accomplished by people reacting to things we say. If what we say is considered credible, oftentimes we do not need to follow through to difficult and dubious actions. However, if due to protracted inaction or issuing empty ultimatums or hypocrisy or the latest leak of the week, posturing becomes useless, then only actions will have effects: Reasoning and negotiation are hampered. Neocons and hawks rejoice. It is not only this engagement that is at risk.
|
[QUOTE=kladner;351315]
We in the States have nothing to gain and much to lose by getting involved.[/QUOTE] Hmm, the US made sure it would not get involved in the silly second world war. It stayed out when Austria was annexed, when Czechoslowakia was overrun, when Poland was split up, when the UK and France declared war, when the Netherlands and Belgium were attacked and when Japan... Ah, see, if you don't choose when to join and under which conditions, make sure it is not going to be decided for you. |
[QUOTE]Vinny Gambini: Lisa, I don't need this. I swear to God, I do not need this right now, okay? I've got a judge that's just aching to throw me in jail. An idiot who wants to fight me for two hundred dollars. Slaughtered pigs. Giant loud whistles. I ain't slept in five days. I got no money, a dress code problem, AND a little murder case which, in the balance, holds the lives of two innocent kids. Not to mention your [taps his foot] BIOLOGICAL CLOCK - my career, your life, our marriage, and let me see, what else can we pile on? Is there any more S**T we can pile on to the top of the outcome of this case? Is it possible?
Lisa: [pause] Maybe it was a bad time to bring it up.[/QUOTE] [URL="http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/08/29/syria-iran-retaliation-threats-not-empty/2726493/"]Iran threatens payback on Syria; Russia sends warships[/URL] [QUOTE]Iran and Russia are working together to prevent a Western military attack on Syria. Russia even sent warships to the Mediterranean where U.S. destroyers are in position to strike if ordered.[/QUOTE][QUOTE]On Thursday, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani said in statements carried by several Iranian state-controlled media outlets that Iran and Russia would work in "extensive cooperation" to prevent any military action against Syria. Western military action against Syria would be an "open violation" of international laws, Rouhani said.[/QUOTE] |
[QUOTE=tha;351380]Hmm, the US made sure it would not get involved in the silly second world war.[/QUOTE]
Sort of... If I understand things correctly (and I'm more than happy to be proven wrong) the US' industries came full-on-steam to supply the Allies. But the supplies weren't donated. There were invoices involved. The US assumed they couldn't be attacked, since the war was "over there...". And, then, of course, Perl Harbor.... P.S. Interestingly, the US played a similar game during the first Gulf War. They had their strategic partners (like Japan) pay for the aging traditional weapons used during that conflict. Again, happy to be corrected if I'm wrong. |
[QUOTE=chalsall;351386]Sort of...
If I understand things correctly (and I'm more than happy to be proven wrong) the US' industries came full-on-steam to supply the Allies. But the supplies weren't donated. There were invoices involved.[/QUOTE]Details here: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease[/url] |
[QUOTE=chalsall;351386]And, then, of course, Perl Harbor.[/QUOTE]That well-known C port in the Pacific.
|
[QUOTE=xilman;351390]That well-known C port in the Pacific.[/QUOTE]
Your point? |
[QUOTE=chalsall;351391]Your point?[/QUOTE]Zabriskie, on this occasion.
|
[QUOTE=xilman;351392]Zabriskie, on this occasion.[/QUOTE]
So, then, no actual point. Just distraction? |
LOL, nice one, Paul.
[QUOTE=chalsall;351393]So, then, no actual point. Just distraction?[/QUOTE] W.r.to the scripting language allegedly attacked by the Japanese in late '42, I believe the aim would be more ex- than dis-traction. C'mon, Chris, ya gotta let the local punsters have their fun. |
[QUOTE=ewmayer;351396]C'mon, Chris, ya gotta let the local punsters have their fun.[/QUOTE]
Why? What's the upside? |
Swerving abruptly back on-topic, I note major players in the financial press today are making the case for "intervention" in Syria. Here is [url=http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-08-29/obama-is-about-to-undermine-his-mideast-doctrine.html]Bloomberg[/url] (US) - I've underlined the especially rich stuff:
[quote]America is poised to strike at the Assad regime in good part because Obama could not resist the urge, last year, to declare publicly the existence of a chemical weapons red line that the Assad regime should not cross. Obama could not resist because the urge was morally irresistible. [u]Like any decent human being, and like anyone with respect for international law and international norms of behavior[/u], Obama was repulsed by the idea that the Assad regime would deploy poison gas against his own people, and he said so. Obama, by demarcating a red line, placed American credibility on the line. If the world is to maintain the taboo against the use of chemical weapons, then the world’s superpower, [u]which does so much to ensure global stability[/u], must act, particularly when its leader has previously threatened to act.[/quote] In other words, the fact that we have no clue which side used the alleged chem-weapons should not deter us from "sending a stern message in furtherance of global stability". And the [url=http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/2af6babe-117e-11e3-a14c-00144feabdc0.html?siteedition=intl#axzz2dT2ONGYL]Financial Times[/url] (UK): [quote]This week’s events will have an impact. [u]They will strengthen a rising US perception that Britain is an ally pulling back from the world[/u]. Mr Cameron’s decision to call a referendum on EU membership fits this picture. Why would Britain weaken itself further by disengaging from Europe? There lies the danger. It is one thing for Britain to confront reality. In its own way, the US has been doing the same by rationing its interventions in the Middle East. But, [u]even as a diminished power, Britain still has something worthwhile to offer in helping to sustain global order[/u].[/quote] Methinks FT left off a "the" preceding "global order". Even if not, the "force for justice" and "global policeman" hubris is sickening. Don't have easy access to the WSJ, if any of our readers does, would be interested in their opining today. [b]Friday Humor:[/b] I realize there's nothing funny about it, but the deliberate illogic displayed here is just so outrageous, it belongs in the "surely you must be joking" category: [url=http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-08-30/released-us-report-proving-assads-use-chemical-weapons-based-youtube-clips-full-repo]"Proof" Assad Used Chemical Weapons Is One Hundred YouTube Clips: Full Report Attached[/url] [quote]"We have identified one hundred videos attributed to the attack, many of which show large numbers of bodies exhibiting physical signs consistent with, but not unique to, nerve agent exposure. ... [u]We assess the Syrian opposition does not have the capability to fabricate all of the videos, physical symptoms verified by medical personnel and NGOs, and other information associated with this chemical attack[/u]."[/quote] They don't have to fabricate the *videos* &c., you blithering morons - if they manage to stage a series of chem weapons "incidents", the "conclusive proof videos" will be done for them by every smartphone owner in the area, and of *course* all the signs will point to chem weapons having been used. But by whom? |
Yeah, Ernst. That last bit is good WTF!?!? material. Let's see, "if it's on the Interwebs it must be true. Just LOOK at all these YouTubes which prove it!"
|
[QUOTE=chalsall;351393]So, then, no actual point. Just distraction?[/QUOTE]Nope, a real point. Otherwise I wouldn't have given you an explicit example.
|
[QUOTE=xilman;351390]That well-known C port in the Pacific.[/QUOTE]
LOL! :grin: |
The Washington Post (Watergate -> Woodward not so great on Valerie Plame -> newspaper now owned by Jeff Bezos of Amazon) has an article that I found to be very helpful:
[URL="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/08/29/9-questions-about-syria-you-were-too-embarrassed-to-ask/"]9 questions about Syria you were too embarrassed to ask[/URL] By Max Fisher[LIST=1][*]What is Syria?[*]Why are people in Syria killing each other?[*]That’s horrible. But there are protests lots of places. How did it all go so wrong in Syria? And, please, just give me the short version.[*]I hear a lot about how Russia still loves Syria, though. And Iran, too. What’s their deal?[*]This is all feeling really bleak and hopeless. Can we take a music break?[*]Why hasn’t the United States fixed this yet?[*]So why would Obama bother with strikes that no one expects to actually solve anything?[*]Come on, what’s the big deal with chemical weapons? Assad kills 100,000 people with bullets and bombs but we’re freaked out over 1,000 who maybe died from poisonous gas? That seems silly. You didn’t answer my question. That just tells me that we can maybe preserve the norm against chemical weapons, not why we should.[*]Hi, there was too much text so I skipped to the bottom to find the big take-away. What’s going to happen?[/LIST]The article did succeed in making me feel that I better understood the situation. The TL;DR summation offered as the final entry in the above list:[QUOTE] Short-term maybe the United States and some allies will launch some limited, brief strikes against Syria and maybe they won’t. Either way, these things seem pretty certain in the long-term: • The killing will continue, probably for years. There’s no one to sign a peace treaty on the rebel side, even if the regime side were interested, and there’s no foreseeable victory for either. Refugees will continue fleeing into neighboring countries, causing instability and an entire other humanitarian crisis as conditions in the camps worsen. • Syria as we know it, an ancient place with a rich and celebrated culture and history, will be a broken, failed society, probably for a generation or more. It’s very hard to see how you rebuild a functioning state after this. Maybe worse, it’s hard to see how you get back to a working social contract where everyone agrees to get along. • Russia will continue to block international action, the window for which has maybe closed anyway. The United States might try to pressure, cajole or even horse-trade Moscow into changing its mind, but there’s not much we can offer them that they care about as much as Syria. • At some point the conflict will cool, either from a partial victory or from exhaustion. The world could maybe send in some peacekeepers or even broker a fragile peace between the various ethnic, religious and political factions. Probably the best model is Lebanon, which fought a brutal civil war that lasted 15 years from 1975 to 1990 and has been slowly, slowly recovering ever since. It had some bombings [URL="http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/northern-lebanese-city-buries-it-dead-after-double-bomb-attack/2013/08/24/ff4d6eb8-0cf9-11e3-89fe-abb4a5067014_story.html"]just last week[/URL].[/QUOTE] I mainly mentioned the parenthetical comment about the Washington Post sale because of its fairly recent occurrence. Just now I've noticed that Bob Woodward talked to TIME about the purchase: [URL="http://swampland.time.com/2013/08/06/time-qa-with-bob-woodward-on-the-washington-post-sale/"]TIME Q&A with Bob Woodward on the Washington Post Sale[/URL] |
Why Syria is complex:
[url]http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/08/27/the-one-map-that-shows-why-syria-is-so-complicated/[/url] Larger version of the map: [URL]http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/files/2013/08/Levant_Ethnicity_lg-smaller1-zoom.jpg[/URL] |
[QUOTE=cheesehead;351476]Why Syria is complex:
[URL]http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/08/27/the-one-map-that-shows-why-syria-is-so-complicated/[/URL] Larger version of the map: [URL]http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/files/2013/08/Levant_Ethnicity_lg-smaller1-zoom.jpg[/URL][/QUOTE] That's a great map. Many thanks! |
Obama forgot one of the lessons of not-long-ago history.
Recall when, during the first month of Bush-the-Younger's presidency, an American spy plane, after a mid-air collision with an overeagerly-piloted Chinese fighter, had to land on a Chinese island? Barely past inauguration, Bush-the-Younger imprudently puffed up and blustered that the plane was "sovereign territory" of the United States and warned the Chinese not to board it. I'd bet they're still laughing in Peking about that paper-tiger meow. Obama shouldn't have been so forceful in his words about teaching Assad a lesson while there was even the slightest chance that he'd wind up asking Congress to approve. OTOH, Syria's crowing about a "retreat" might swing a few votes in Obama's favor. |
[QUOTE=cheesehead;351577]Obama shouldn't have been so forceful in his words about teaching Assad a lesson while there was even the slightest chance that he'd wind up asking Congress to approve.[/QUOTE]I'm waiting to see how it plays out. It may end up looking masterful if other world parties join in collective action after this manufactured delay. Also getting Congress to have some skin in the game does not bother me at all. I'm tired of watching them safely quarterback from the sidelines.
This talk of about punishing chemical weapons usage to maintain "norms" of agreed war behavior would be stronger if the US hadn't created a new category of prisoner, "enemy combatant" [1] to avoid the Geneva Convention's prisoner of war status. All that torture stuff didn't help either. [1] The Obama administration abandoned the term "enemy combatant" in 2009. |
ZeroHedge, to their discredit, [url=http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-09-02/fiction-fact-or-scandal-epic-proportions]is running[/url] an "admittedly possibly faked" hacked-e-mails-prove-US-behind-staged-nerve-gas-attack story. It looks like the accounts in question may indeed have been hacked ... But in several of the alleged "key incriminating snippets" the English is suddenly very 419-mail-ish ... much like the hacker's itself:
[i][u]I saw it either and got afraid very much[/u]. But Tony comforted me. He said the kids weren't hurt, [u]it was done for cameras[/u]. So you don't worry, my dear.[/i] (The 2nd /ul snip is missing the expected 'the' - a typical non-native-english-writer tipoff). [i]You know, I can't stop thinking about that terrible gas attack in Syria now. Did you see those kids? I was really crying… They were poisoned, they died. [u]When is it over? I see their faces when in sleep. What did Tony say you about this?[/u][/i] Seriously, guys? "when in sleep" and "What did Tony say you about this?" LOL, pull the other one. Again, given the Al Qaeda involvement in the Syrian rebellion, the false-flag scenario I consider most credible is actual nerve-gas use, by the rebels rather than the regime. AQ has certainly shown to have the coordination, contacts and ruthlessness to get some rockets like those used by the Hezbollah militia, load them with nerve gas and launch them into populated areas, if they weigh the "martyrdom" of the resulting victims as being worth the payoff of getting the US to go after the regime. |
The question is always, "Cui bono?"
|
[QUOTE=ewmayer;351686]ZeroHedge...<snip>...[/QUOTE]
I swear to god I did not write that! It looks like my English, but it was not me... :razz: |
[url]http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/08/29/9-questions-about-syria-you-were-too-embarrassed-to-ask/[/url]
|
[QUOTE=firejuggler;351712][URL]http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/08/29/9-questions-about-syria-you-were-too-embarrassed-to-ask/[/URL][/QUOTE]
When a link gets independently discovered and posted by two different forum members, you can be sure it's a good one! As someone with little to no understanding of the Middle East, I certainly appreciated this article. |
[QUOTE=kladner;351692]The question is always, "Cui bono?"[/QUOTE]
Sorry, I missed the most recent U2 concert tour... :P |
[QUOTE=Brian-E;351717]When a link gets independently discovered and posted by two different forum members, you can be sure it's a good one![/QUOTE]
Interestingly, the page linked consumed 100% of one of my CPUs on my main workstation. (Interested to know what took so much CPU. Perhaps a CPU pretending to be a GPU? Perhaps only the map? Or was there other stuff going on there?) Bad site! Bad!!! Don't do that again! Or I won't visit.... |
[QUOTE=ewmayer;351754]Sorry, I missed the most recent U2 concert tour... :P[/QUOTE]
<SNORT!> |
o A friend and I have been having a debate about the claims in the [url=http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/09/05/201268/russia-releases-100-page-report.html#.Uiij1TashcY]100-page Russian report[/url] provided to the UN about the March sarin gas attack in Aleppo, which concludes it was most likely the Syrian rebels who were behind the attack:
[quote]The report itself was not released. But the statement drew a pointed comparison between what it said was the scientific detail of the report and the far shorter intelligence summaries that the United States, Britain and France have released to justify their assertion that the Syrian government launched chemical weapons against Damascus suburbs on Aug. 21. The longest of those summaries, by the French, ran nine pages. Each relies primarily on circumstantial evidence to make its case, and they disagree with one another on some details, including the number of people who died in the attack.[/quote] McClatchy notes that although it has not been made publicly available, the UN has had the above report since July. My friend asserts the report is categorically BS because it notes that the high-explosive (HE) component of the warhead used was the WW2-era (in terms of first large-scale manufacture and military usage) RDX, which he claims is very difficult to produce, and has not been known to be procured by the Syrian rebels and their Al Qaeda affiliates in significant quantity. My counterclaim is that since the various key recipes for RDX are widely available and do not appear [to my somewhat-chem-knowledgeable layman's eyes] to be especially tricky, any industrial chemist worth his salt should be able to produce the stuff at reasonable purity and yield using standard industrial-chem equipment. Alas, the Wikipedia entry on RDX has manufacturing info which focuses almost entirely on WW2 and its cold war aftermath. Similarly, a web search for the precise rocket model produced by Syria fails to turn up details on the warhead composition. {Unless they are buried really deeply in one of the sources that came up]. Would appreciate if any industrial-chem-knowledgeable folks amongst the readership could weigh in on this. I am especially trying to ascertain: - Which countries are known to manufacture the stuff for their own military and/or commercial [e.g. demolitions-used shape charges and such] use? [Or "pretty much all of them with sizable militaries" would suffice as well]. - Whether the Katyusha rockets manufactured by Syria [which account for the vast majority of the ones used by the Hezbollah militia in southern Lebanon, among other things] use RDX as a standard part of their high-explosive warhead (if so, provenance of the RDX would also be interesting, but probably less crucial); o And in probably the most important "new" news of the day on the topic: [url=http://www.theonion.com/articles/poll-majority-of-americans-approve-of-sending-cong,33752/]Poll: Majority Of Americans Approve Of Sending Congress To Syria[/url] |
[QUOTE=ewmayer;352230]
o And in probably the most important "new" news of the day on the topic: [URL="http://www.theonion.com/articles/poll-majority-of-americans-approve-of-sending-cong,33752/"]Poll: Majority Of Americans Approve Of Sending Congress To Syria[/URL][/QUOTE] YAY! ....and they don't come back till it's over over there! |
Actually they might bore the fighters so much that they won't bother them.
|
[QUOTE=firejuggler;352299]Actually they might bore the fighters so much that they won't bother them.[/QUOTE]
Could they possibly afflict all involved with narcolepsy? :yawn: |
Excellent [i]Daily Beast[/i] Op-Ed from a commentator normally found in the MET thread series:
[url=www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/09/03/the-end-of-u-s-imperium-finally.html]The End of U.S. Imperium—Finally![/url] [quote]Next week Congress can do far more than stop a feckless Tomahawk barrage on a small country that is already a graveyard of civil war and sectarian slaughter. By voting “no,” it can trigger the end of the American Imperium—five decades of incessant meddling, bullying, and subversion around the globe that has added precious little to national security but left America fiscally exhausted and morally diminished. Indeed, the tragedy of this vast string of misbegotten interventions—from the 1953 coup against Mohammad Mosaddegh in Iran through the recent bombing campaign in Libya—is that virtually none of them involved defending the homeland or any tangible, steely-eyed linkages to national security. They were all rooted in ideology—that is, anti-communism, anti-terrorism, humanitarianism, R2P-ism, nation building, American exceptionalism. These were the historic building blocks of a failed Pax Americana. Now the White House wants authorization for the last straw: namely, to deliver from the firing tubes of U.S. naval destroyers a dose of righteous “punishment” that has no plausible military or strategic purpose. By the president’s own statements, the proposed attack is merely designed to censure the Syrian regime for allegedly visiting one particularly horrific form of violence on its own citizens. Well, really? After having rained napalm, white phosphorous, bunker busters, drone missiles, and the most violent machinery of conventional warfare ever assembled upon millions of innocent Vietnamese, Cambodians, Serbs, Somalis, Iraqis, Afghans, Pakistanis, Yemeni, Libyans, and countless more, Washington now presupposes to be in the moral-sanctions business? That’s downright farcical. Nevertheless, by declaring himself the world’s spanker in chief, President Obama has unwittingly precipitated the mother of all clarifying moments.[/quote] |
WSJ columnist Peggy Noonan has some interesting thoughts on the latest developments in her blog entry [url=http://blogs.wsj.com/peggynoonan/2013/09/10/making-sense-of-syria/]Making Sense of Syria[/url]:
[quote]Why is [Obama] backing off? Because he knows he doesn’t have the American people and isn’t going to get them. The polls, embarrassingly, show the more people hear the less they support it. The president’s problem with his own base was probably startling to him, and sobering. He knows he was going to lose Congress, not only the House but very possibly—likely, I’d say—the Senate. The momentum was all against him. And he never solved—it was not solvable—his own Goldilocks problem: A strike too small is an embarrassment, a strike too big could topple the Assad regime and leave Obama responsible for a complete and cutthroat civil war involving terrorists, foreign operatives, nihilists, jihadists, underemployed young men, and some really nice, smart people. Obama didn’t want to own that, or the fires that could engulf the region once Syria went up. His plan was never good. The choices were never good. In any case he was going to lose either in terms of domestic prestige, the foreign result or both. Likely both. He got himself into it and now Vladimir Putin, who opposes U.S. policy in Syria and repeatedly opposed a strike, is getting him out. This would be coldly satisfying for Putin and no doubt personally galling for Obama—another reason he can’t look as if he’s lunging. A serious foreign-policy intellectual said recently that Putin’s problem is that he’s a Russian leader in search of a Nixon, a U.S. president he can really negotiate with, a stone player who can talk grand strategy and the needs of his nation, someone with whom he can thrash it through and work it out. Instead he has Obama, a self-besotted charismatic who can’t tell the difference between showbiz and strategy, and who enjoys unburdening himself of moral insights to his peers. But Putin has no reason to want a Syrian conflagration. He is perhaps amused to have a stray comment by John Kerry be the basis for a resolution of the crisis. The hidden rebuke: It means that when Putin met with Obama at the G-20 last week Obama, due to his lack of competence, got nothing. But a stray comment by the Secretary of State? Sure, why not rub Obama’s face in it. * * * All this, if it is roughly correct, is going to make the president’s speech tonight quite remarkable. It will be a White House address in which a president argues for an endeavor he is abandoning. It will be a president appealing for public support for an action he intends not to take. We’ve never had a presidential speech like that![/quote] |
[QUOTE=ewmayer;352664]WSJ columnist Peggy Noonan has some interesting thoughts on the latest developments in her blog entry.[/QUOTE]
The question stands. Were chemical weapons used? If so, by who (or is it whom)? |
[QUOTE=chalsall;352668]The question stands.
Were chemical weapons used? If so, by who (or is it whom)?[/QUOTE] Secretary of State John "why the long face?" Kerry stated numerous times this past week that "there is no doubt that chemical weapons were used, and that the Assad regime was responsible". Leaving aside the uncomfortable question "if that is so, why is there a UN team on the ground right now which is attempting to determine if CW were used, and which has stated that even if it determines the answer is 'yes', it will remain an open question as to who is responsible?" - Mr. Kerry wouldn't be playing fast and loose with the available evidence now, would he? I mean, when has a U.S. administration ever [strike]lied through its teeth[/strike] misled the public about the reasons for [strike]going to war[/strike] supporting democracy? Although perhaps the apt headline for a nixing of the Syrian-strike plans would be "President's latest economic stimulus package [url=http://www.theonion.com/articles/john-kerry-costs-us-defense-industry-400-billion,33815/]fails to gain traction[/url]." That sounds much better than, say, "You Cannot be Syrious[sup]*[/sup]: Confusion Reigns in Latest Beltway Fiasco". [[sup]*[/sup]With the latest edition of the US Open tennis having just finished, I thought a John McEnroe reference was appropriate.] |
Related: [url=www.nytimes.com/2013/09/12/world/middleeast/united-nations-panel-cites-evidence-of-war-crimes-in-syria.html?ref=world&_r=0]U.N. Rights Panel Cites Evidence of War Crimes by Both Sides in Syria[/url]
President Obama's "The [url=http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0085407/trivia?tab=qt&ref_=tt_trv_qu]missiles are flying - hallelujah[/url]! ... erm, I meant 'Let's all be [url=http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0110912/trivia?tab=qt&ref_=tt_trv_qu]cool little Fonzies[/url] and give diplomacy a chance'" speech Tuesday night had me again thinking "well, he clearly is a much smoother liar than was Dubya Bush." But that aside - irrespective of content and delivery, we are forced to bestow an automatic FAIL for invoking Hitler. (And we note that Sec. Kerry and Senator Reid 'went there' in the past week, as well.) And in fitting accompaniment, for your schizophrenic-political-flip-flopping perusal pleasure: [url=www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-09-11/which-john-kerry-said-following]Which John Kerry Said The Following?[/url] |
[QUOTE=ewmayer;352783]Related: [url=www.nytimes.com/2013/09/12/world/middleeast/united-nations-panel-cites-evidence-of-war-crimes-in-syria.html?ref=world&_r=0]U.N. Rights Panel Cites Evidence of War Crimes by Both Sides in Syria[/url][/QUOTE]
Vladimir Putin highlights the above "neither side is 'good' here" issue in a [url=http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/12/opinion/putin-plea-for-caution-from-russia-on-syria.html?src=twr&_r=3&]NYT op-ed today[/url]. Of course Putin bears no small amount of responsibility here, since Russia has been a staunch ally and armorer of the Syrian governmet. But, Putin is not the one calling for "more war". As one online commenter who grew up at the height of the cold war notes, [i]"When Putin makes more sense than our own government does you know we're in trouble."[/i] |
[QUOTE=ewmayer;352848]But, Putin is not the one calling for "more war".[/QUOTE]He's not? How do you justify that?
Russia is openly arming Assad and his army. [quote]As one online commenter who grew up at the height of the cold war notes, [I]"When Putin makes more sense than our own government does you know we're in trouble."[/I][/quote]When Americans are snookered by Putin's bluff into believing that Putin makes more sense than our own government, as so many seem to be, we are indeed in trouble. I forgot to post this explanation of how two decades of history has led Putin to put on a massive bluff: (Sorry about the length, but I think it's important to see how Russia's view is not at all like ours. They are [i]scared[/i].) "Syria, America and Putin's Bluff" [URL]http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/syria-america-and-putins-bluff[/URL] [quote]... if we are to understand the U.S.-Russian crisis over Syria, it makes sense to consider the crisis within in the arc of recent history from Kosovo in 1999 to Georgia in 2008 to where we are today.[/quote](with my underlining) [quote=George Friedman][U]Putin is bluffing that Russia has emerged as a major world power[/U]. In reality, Russia is merely a regional power, but mainly because its periphery is in shambles. He has tried to project a strength that he doesn't have, and he has done it well. For him, Syria poses a problem because the United States is about to call his bluff, and [U]he is not holding strong cards[/U]. To understand his game we need to start with the recent G-20 meeting in St. Petersburg, Russia. ... The tensions showcased at the G-20 between Washington and Moscow rekindled memories of the Cold War, a time when Russia was a global power. And [U]that is precisely the mood Putin wanted to create. That's where Putin's bluff begins[/U]. . . . ... during the Kosovo crisis. Slobodan Milosevic, leader of what was left of Yugoslavia, was a Russian ally. Russia had a historic relationship with Serbia, and it did not want to see Serbia dismembered, with Kosovo made independent. ... the Russians did not want European borders to change. There had been a general agreement that forced changes in borders should not happen in Europe, given its history, and the Russians were concerned that restive parts of the Russian Federation, from Chechnya to Karelia to Pacific Russia, might use the forced separation of Serbia and Kosovo as a precedent for dismembering Russia. [U]In fact, they suspected that was the point of Kosovo.[/U] ... most important, [U]they felt that an attack without U.N. approval and without Russian support should not be undertaken both under international law and out of respect for Russia.[/U] President Bill Clinton and some NATO allies went to war nevertheless. ... Russia felt it deserved more deference on Kosovo ... the incident served as a catalyst for Russia's leadership to try to halt the country's decline and regain its respect. ... Western Encroachment The United States has supported, financially and otherwise, the proliferation of human rights groups in the former Soviet Union. When many former Soviet countries experienced revolutions in the 1990s that created governments that were somewhat more democratic but certainly more pro-Western and pro-American, Russia saw the West closing in. The turning point came in Ukraine, where the Orange Revolution generated what seemed to Putin a pro-Western government in 2004. Ukraine was the one country that, if it joined NATO, would make Russia indefensible and would control many of its pipelines to Europe. In Putin's view, the non-governmental organizations helped engineer this, and he claimed that U.S. and British intelligence services funded those organizations. To Putin, the actions in Ukraine indicated that the United States in particular was committed to extending the collapse of the Soviet Union to a collapse of the Russian Federation. Kosovo was an insult from his point of view. The Orange Revolution was an attack on basic Russian interests. . . . ... In 2008, the Europeans decided to make Kosovo fully independent. The Russians asked that this not happen and said that the change had little practical meaning anyway. From the Russian point of view, there was no reason to taunt Russia with this action. The Europeans were indifferent. . . . Since 2008, Putin has attempted to create a sense that Russia has returned to its former historic power. ... In fact, Russia remains a shadow of what the Soviet Union was. ... But at this moment in history, with the United States withdrawing from deep involvement in the Muslim world, and with the Europeans in institutional disarray, it exerts a level of power in excess of its real capacity. The Russians have been playing their own bluff, and this bluff helps domestically by creating a sense that, despite its problems, Russia has returned to greatness. In this game, taking on and besting the United States at something, regardless of its importance, is critical. The Snowden matter was perfect for the Russians. ... It has created two important impressions. The first is that Russia is still capable of wounding the United States ... The second impression was that the United States was being hypocritical. ... It humiliated the Americans in terms of their own lax security and furthermore weakened the ability of the United States to reproach Russia for human rights violations. ... But now that the United States is considering a strike on the Syrian regime following its suspected use of chemical weapons, Washington may be in a position to deal a setback to a Russia client state, and by extension, Moscow itself. The Syria Question ... In the illusion of global power that Putin needs to create, the fall of al Assad would undermine his strategy tremendously unless the United States was drawn into yet another prolonged and expensive conflict in the Middle East. ... But the United States is not very likely to get as deeply involved in Syria as it did in those countries. ... This could cause Russia to suffer a humiliation similar to the one it dealt the United States in 2008 with Georgia. The United States will demonstrate that Russia's concerns are of no account and that Russia has no counters if and when the United States decides to act. . . . Putin made this a core issue for him. I don't think he expected the Europeans to take the position that al Assad had used chemical weapons. He thought he had more pull than that. He didn't. The Europeans may not fly missions but they are not in a position to morally condemn those who do. [U]That means that Putin's bluff is in danger.[/U] . . .[/quote] |
Here's an analysis by someone who's not fooled by Putin's bluff:
"The Hidden Fear in Putin's New York Times Op-Ed The Russian president's language choice indicates his worry about Islamist extremists and the threats they pose to Russia." [URL]http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/09/the-hidden-fear-in-putins-em-new-york-times-em-op-ed/279610/[/URL] [quote]Finding that his strategy of shirtless horseback diplomacy was proving ineffective, Russian President Vladimir Putin instead decided to appeal to the American people directly—with words—in our biggest newspaper today. . . . In it, Putin tries to make the case that the United Nations is really the way to go when it comes to resolving the Syria crisis. You know, the UN, where Russia has blocked all attempts by the U.S. and other countries to do something about Syria.[/quote](Note the hypocrisy.) [quote]Like most op-eds, Putin’s is biased and leaves out some key, inconvenient information. He makes no mention of the fact that Russia is openly arming Assad and his army, thus helping perpetuate a conflict he claims to want to find a “compromise” on. Putin argues a U.S. strike on Syria would upend “law and order,” but doesn’t acknowledge that the Syrian city of Tartus is home to a crucial military base for Russia, or that the Assad regime buys Russian weapons. . . . But there’s another interesting strain here that sheds light on some of the Russian government’s deepest fears when it comes to Syrian intervention. Putin mentions “Qaeda fighters and extremists” and asks his audience to remember how, “after fighting in Libya, extremists moved on to Mali.” He also blamed the rebels, not the Assad government, for using chemical weapons, and refers to the opposition as “fundamentalists.” Putin’s focus on the extremist elements among the rebels touches on a major reservation the U.S. has had about intervening in Syria—that in the aftermath of a potential Assad ouster, “people we don’t like will take power,” as one expert told me recently. But the fear of radical jihadists is also extremely potent in Russia, and it’s one of the many reasons Putin has so firmly opposed toppling the Assad regime. For years Russia has been battling Chechen separatists, many of whom identify as Islamist. Already, linkages between Syria and Chechnya have been growing—groups of Chechens have joined the fight against Assad alongside the Syrian opposition. . . . Russia currently is attempting to quash both the ever-present Chechen independence movement and any potential terrorist threats ahead of the 2014 Sochi Olympics, as the Wilson Center recently spelled out in listicle form on Buzzfeed. In Moscow’s view, those “terrorists” would most likely be radicalized Muslims from Chechnya and elsewhere. Along with its economic and strategic interests in Syria, Putin has an incentive to suppress the rise of radical Islamists in the region more broadly, and in keeping Syria out of the hands of Islamist groups who may later ally with the Chechens, more specifically. Despite the “Listen to Wise Uncle Vladimir” tone Putin takes in the piece, he’s not the cautious, international-law-loving, non-interventionist he makes himself out to be. But he’s not irrational, either.[/quote][I]Please, folks, don't be taken-in by Putin's bluff. [/I]Putin's words may seem sensible on the surface, but they're hollow. |
The point still has to be considered that the US is hardly a paragon of observance of International Law. Unilateral attacks do not conform. That is aside from the idea that throwing more bombs is unlikely to improve the situation. Further, what will replace the regime, odious though it is? Who will then control the arsenal?
EDIT: I don't trust any of the players. I don't take any of their pronouncements at face value. There are plenty of axes to be ground on all sides. |
I think what Cheesehead is saying is that Putin & Russia are justifying all manner of weapons-proliferation, own-corporate-favoritism and political skullduggery in the name of "fighting against terror and extremism", and that that's just plain wrong.
Which is of course entirely correct. Any national leader who does such stuff is a massive hypocrite at best, and a war criminal at worst. Right, cheesehead? |
[QUOTE=ewmayer;352869]I think what Cheesehead is saying...[/QUOTE]
Wow! Not speaking for you, of course.... |
[QUOTE].....justifying all manner of weapons-proliferation, own-corporate-favoritism and political skullduggery in the name of "fighting against terror and extremism".....[/QUOTE]Sounds kinda familiar, don't it?
Oh yeah. Forgot something.....:whistle: |
...And the Rope-a-Dope[sup]tm[/sup] claims its latest victim...
|
I repeat-
I don't trust any of the players. I don't take any of their pronouncements at face value. There are plenty of axes to be ground on all sides. But- I am glad of a postponement, at least, of military action. I will gladly give credit to all involved if the situation bears good fruit. It seems that this has been in the works for a while. Time will tell if it pans out. |
[QUOTE=ewmayer;352869]I think what Cheesehead is saying is that Putin & Russia are justifying all manner of weapons-proliferation, own-corporate-favoritism and political skullduggery in the name of "fighting against terror and extremism",[/QUOTE]No, I'm saying that Putin is now trying to bluff the West into acting as though Russia were stronger than it actually is.
I'm saying that Putin & Russia have their own history and views which the West doesn't share, but needs to understand in order to understand Putin's and Russia's motives in the case of Syria. [quote]just plain wrong.[/quote]What's just plain wrong is your attempt to distort my message for your own purpose of manipulating your readers rather than being truthful. |
[QUOTE=cheesehead;352904]What's just plain wrong ...[/QUOTE]
It's good to see your clarification, Richard, but Ernst's posting actually came across to me as a genuine attempt to support your point of view in response to something which Kieren wrote (and Kieren later did his own clarification). No-one seems to disagree fundamentally, and several inadvertent misrepresentations have been corrected by those who posted the original point of view. Now someone tell me I've got it all wrong...:smile: |
[QUOTE=Brian-E;352905]Now someone tell me I've got it all wrong...:smile:[/QUOTE]Very well, if you insist. You've got it all wrong.
|
[QUOTE=xilman;352912]Very well, if you insist. You've got it all wrong.[/QUOTE]
I was afraid that I had. You usually tell people to get their irony detectors serviced. Considering that you've refrained from that here, perhaps it's more serious than that this time. I'd better keep my trap shut in this discussion from now on. :redface: |
[QUOTE=Brian-E;352922]You usually tell people to get their irony detectors serviced. [/QUOTE]You've not obeyed the Golden Rule[sup]*[/sup].
Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence. Paul * No, not the one which states that he who has the gold makes the rules. |
[QUOTE=xilman;352931]You've not obeyed the Golden Rule[sup]*[/sup].
Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence. Paul * No, not the one which states that he who has the gold makes the rules.[/QUOTE] Thanks. I'll get onto servicing my irony detector straight away. |
[QUOTE=ewmayer;352869]I think what Cheesehead is saying is [INDENT]that [INDENT]Putin & Russia are justifying all manner of weapons-proliferation, own-corporate-favoritism and political skullduggery in the name of "fighting against terror and extremism", [/INDENT][/INDENT][INDENT]and that[INDENT]that's just plain wrong.[/INDENT][/INDENT][INDENT]Which is of course entirely correct. [/INDENT]
Any national leader who does such stuff is a massive hypocrite at best, and a war criminal at worst. Right, cheesehead?[/QUOTE] ...parsing tags inserted. |
[QUOTE=cheesehead;352904]No, I'm saying that Putin is now trying to bluff the West into acting as though Russia were stronger than it actually is.[/QUOTE]
I, personally, think that you are most likely mostly correct. But, not only Russia... [QUOTE=cheesehead;352904]I'm saying that Putin & Russia have their own history and views which the West doesn't share, but needs to understand in order to understand Putin's and Russia's motives in the case of Syria.[/QUOTE] Sound thoughts. [QUOTE=cheesehead;352904]What's just plain wrong is your attempt to distort my message for your own purpose of manipulating your readers rather than being truthful.[/QUOTE] This isn't personal Cheesehead. This is open debate. It's generally healthy. |
[QUOTE=chalsall;352943]This is open debate. It's generally healthy.[/QUOTE]
Except to those who choose to take it personally. If I did that, Cheesiepoofs' calling me "untruthy" would likely raise my blood pressure significantly. Continuing my boxing analogy ... "Is that all you got, George?" [BTW, [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/When_We_Were_Kings]excellent documentary here[/url]. for those who've not seen it.] |
[QUOTE=ewmayer;352945]Except to those who choose to take it personally. If I did that, Cheesiepoofs' calling me "untruthy" would likely raise my blood pressure significantly.
Continuing my boxing analogy ... "Is that all you got, George?" [BTW, [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/When_We_Were_Kings]excellent documentary here[/url]. for those who've not seen it.][/QUOTE] You're a "super-mod". You're going to be insulted. And challenged. And be made uptight. Deal with it. Imagine what Prime Ministers and Presidents (let alone CEOs) have to deal with.... |
[QUOTE=chalsall;352947]You're a "super-mod".[/quote]Are you sure?
|
[QUOTE=ewmayer;352945]Except to those who choose to take it personally.[/QUOTE]Folks,
Notice how Ernst attempts to deceive you by trying to pretend that his post #81 was _not_ personally directed to me, and that my taking it so was unjustified. Count the number of times "cheesehead" appears in #81, including the direct question at the end. Then count the number of times any other mersenneforum.org participant is mentioned in #81. [quote]If I did that, Cheesiepoofs' calling me "untruthy" would likely raise my blood pressure significantly.[/quote]Folks, Note Ernst's false implication that I ever called him "untruthy". Ernst seems, lately in this thread, unable to write any post related to me in a straightforward honest manner without falsehood, attempted deception, and/or attempted belittlement. Ask yourselves: why didn't Ernst respond to my posts #78-79 straightforwardly (or not at all) without trying to get me to agree with a ridiculously false paraphrase of what I said? |
| All times are UTC. The time now is 16:43. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.