Syria

[Yossarian]

No way the Security Council approves military action. Did I miss it or did Congress approve anything? So how credible is Obama's threat?

Seems kind of ironic to me.


Obama Can Strike Syria Unilaterally

The attack on Libya two years ago offers a handy blueprint.

Over the weekend, the White House declared that there is “very little doubt” that Syrian dictator Bashar Assad (http://topics.time.com/bashar-assad/)‘s forces used chemical weapons against his own people.

For better or worse, there’s also very little doubt that President Obama — should he choose to do so — can retaliate against Syrian targets for their use without approval from the American people, or their elected representatives in Congress (http://topics.time.com/congress/).

....


A Reuters poll released over the weekend shows that 60% of Americans oppose U.S. intervention in Syria. Only 9% support U.S. military action.
That leaves Obama with a tough choice: do something most Americans don’t want done, or show that his warning to Assad last year — that the Syrian government’s use of chemical weapons would be a “redline” requiring a U.S. response — is a hollow threat.




http://swampland.time.com/2013/08/26/obama-can-strike-syria-unilaterally/#ixzz2d5dqnqHB

[catherine]

Very tough decision for Obama. But did you see the video of the Syrian citizens felled by the chemical weapons?? Horrifying.

[freein05]

President Obama please don't get us involved.

[Alan]

http://www.freakingnews.com/pictures/108000/Obama-And-His-Red-Line-For-Syria-108490.jpg

[ApatheticNoMore]

President Obama please don't get us involved.

+1000


Very tough decision for Obama. But did you see the video of the Syrian citizens felled by the chemical weapons?? Horrifying.

There is still doubt on who those chemical weapons actually belonged to, the Syrian govt or the opposition. There is still reason for doubt that the Syrian govt isn't being framed here. There is still reason for suspicion it is! (documents that point to that - but that are darn hard to trace - so what's propaganda on the U.S. side and what's counter propaganda from the Syrian govt. - I don't know absolutely! How could I? And it's not likely to leak out that easy). There is some suspicion the "chemical weapons" weren't military chemical weapons but actually industrial chemicals used as weapons (not that that isn't deadly). And no I don't say this out of ANY love for the Syrian govt. Chemical weapons were Obama's line in the sand for attacking Syria, chemical weapons suddenly appear, wow it sure is convenient, ain't it! Gulf of Tonkin anyone? WMD anyone? Yellowcake anyone? Does anyone remember there was a neocon plan to attack several countries in the Middle East and Syria was one - but all the reasons for going to war in the middle east are all separate from each other and arise organically - uh I don't know that's just a little too much coincidence! The U.S. has already stuck itself into Syria, it's been arming the rebels, the only end result will be to reduce the country to rubble. Does the opposition want a democracy? No, they are theocrats, they are Al Queda, etc.. The U.S. is going to turn yet another country over to Islamic militants (easier to control economically that way), even if the U.S. govt succeeded.

If one expects some certainty to be known here about the chem weapons, they expect too much, I'm saying skepticism. It's amazing dozens of failed wars later we still keep buying the rational for wars. So the results of the chemical weapons use are horrifying. I do not deny that. If we get involved in the war it will be horrifying. What the U.S. govt. has done to a half dozen countries in the middle east is horrifying. What U.S. allowed to happen in Iraq was horrifying (reading Manning's account of the tortures that went on there - under our permission - definitely every bit as horrifying as chemical weapons) - read about U.S. govt rendition program to black sites. The U.S. govt is not a good guy which no doesn't mean the Syrian govt. automatically is. But why even take a side between the devil and the devil. Uh .... I'm sitting this one out thanks.

Meanwhile what will yet another will war do to the U.S.? Want to eliminate Social Security, Medicare etc.? Wasting more money on war is a good way to get there. Strange how austerity and grand bargains and so on NEVER NEVER NEVER apply to war. And the militarism comes home, the police state comes home. The tanks patrol our streets. The bombs fall on our cities (well not literally yet, that's just a paraphrase of a favorite quote of mine about war from MLK - he meant economically mostly - war destroyed the attempts of LBJ to deal with poverty - but in all ways the wars come home).

Join an anti-war protest if you can. This is I suspect bound to be another MAJOR war!!! It's not going to be a little war like Libya. Or so I suspect.

[creaker]

President Obama please don't get us involved.

We had a pretty easy time ignoring it when it happened in Iraq 25 years ago.

It will either be ignored again - or used as justification for involvement. But given the past actions of the US I really don't think they care one way or the other about civilians affected. And could (again) cause more harm than aid to the bystanders if we get involved.

[Alan]

But given the past actions of the US I really don't think they care one way or the other about civilians affected. And could (again) cause more harm than aid to the bystanders if we get involved.
Yes, the Kitty Genovese syndrome is quite popular.

[creaker]

Yes, the Kitty Genovese syndrome is quite popular.

I'm not saying to stay out - I'm saying don't use lives and suffering as an excuse to justify actions when the actual motivations aren't about saving lives and alleviating suffering. I think sometimes US government is truly driven by the goal of saving lives and alleviating suffering, but I think more often it's merely a good sounding excuse to justify an action that is really driven by other motivations.

[ApatheticNoMore]

War is very rarely worth the "cost" if one looks at the likely full consequences (based on what has happened before - two recent wars and you can see what the U.S. is capable of). Never? Hardly ever.

[Yossarian]

There is still doubt on who those chemical weapons actually belonged to

Fair questions. The Russians asked why Assad would use chemical weapons on the exact day the UN inspector was there when they are winning and the rebels can't win without outside help.

I've never really understood a red line based on choice of weapon. It's ok to shoot or bomb people, but hey, use some chemicals and well, that's bad?

Either way it's bad policy to draw line you won't or can't enforce.

[Lainey]

Our Republican senator McCain is insisting the U.S. take some military action. I don't understand his thinking.

Even if we disable or destroy Assad's air force, it doesn't necessarily mean he'd give up. Not to mention, who's replacing Assad - religous extremists? Middle East terrorist wannabes? No good answer here.

What was the word the comedians use for this area of the world - "Mess- o - potamia"? so true

[razz]

The mid-east is such a complex situation that it will take centuries to sort out the cultural, religious, tribal and historical issues. There is nothing to indicate that any replacement to Assad will be any different, look at Iraq.

[gimmethesimplelife]

I am going to admit right here and now that I don't have an especially informed opinion on this topic, just the little bits and pieces I have been picking up here and there. Since I stopped watching TV except for a rare PBS show, I don't keep track of all of the issues as I once did. That being said, I understand that upwards of 100,000 civilians have been killed in Syria and my heart says help this country some how, do something, don't just sit there and allow endless senseless death to take place. Then there is the side of me that says the US is 17 TRILLION dollars in debt and if we get involved with Syria it will be on further burrowed money, which is NOT a good thing. What to do? Sometimes I think this may be why many allow themselves to be distracted by Dancing With The Stars or Snooki on that one show, or the Royal Baby or whatever - it's easier to deal with meaningless fluff than to deal with heavy and serious issues such as Syria.

My take? I tend towards not getting involved due to the utter explosiveness of the area, no pun intended.....And I don't like myself for it, either. Rob

[ApatheticNoMore]

I don't think you actually lessen bloodshed by militarily taking one side of a civil war. I don't think it would stop the deaths. I'm actually not at all sure it would lead to less deaths than would happen if the U.S. just stayed out (though geez, how do you what if scenario that one. Though I doubt anyone in a position to make such decisions cares). In fact some of those total deaths are without a doubt due to U.S. arms.

If people are distracted ah well, I think they should oppose war, but realistically they have minimal control over the federal government anyway (it rests on their consent in some sense but it would take mass resistance).

I'm not sure how real the debt is (all these unreal digital currency, debts, derivatives on which the whole economy is based etc.) is but I know war is real (real halfway around the world, very well, but real nontheless).

[Zoebird]

i agree, anm.

[Selah]

I am speaking from a purely selfish point of view here, I know. But I live in the north of Israel, right on the border with Lebanon. I personally would prefer it if everyone left Syria alone to deal with their own problems--stop arming anyone, and stop threatening to intervene. This is simply because I know that some factions within our neighboring states are just itching for some "just cause" to take it out on Israel.

We just had four rockets land in our town last week...a little gift from some people in Lebanon (not the government, I might add....the Lebanese government told Israel immediately who had done it!). Sirens screaming and running to a hot and somewhat fetid bomb shelter is no fun at all, not to mention worrying about your friends, neighbors, and whether the sirens will go off again in the middle of the night, or if things will heat up so badly that you'll have to become a displaced person. I know that choosing to live here involves a big dollop of "assumption of risk," but peace is my preferred default setting for relations with our neighbors.

[Gregg]

Can anyone answer the simple question of why it is the responsibility of the US to intervene? I would consider supporting a UN humanitarian mission in which the US contribution is equivalent to that of... France. The notion that the President appears to be ready to put US boots on Syrian ground, and do it without a Congressional Declaration btw, is obscene. Even President Bush (43) secured such a Declaration before heading into Iraq. He got two of them, actually. And what do you suppose Vladimir Putin thinks of this little cat and mouse game? The Kremlin has been awfully vocal the past few days, drawing their own lines in the sand. From my POV any level of invasion without full Congressional approval would be an impeachable act. Even Jay Carney can't spin gold out of this pile of _____. How 'bout we fill those four big boats parked off the Syrian coast with refugees instead of dragging us into yet another shoving match with crazy people? How 'bout we take them all? Anyone from Syria who wants asylum in the US can have it. Anyone who doesn't is on their own (at least as far as the US is concerned).

[bae]

Hope and change!

[Gregg]

Hope and change!

Indeed.

[gimmethesimplelife]

I have taken it upon myself to become more educated about Syria and I understand the leader Assad has used some kind of gas on Syrians in a suburb of Damascus recently. This according to the article I read, interestingly enough from the Wall Street Journal, puts Assad up there with Missoulini (sp?) and Saddam H, both of whom have done the same. The article went on to further state that although Hitler used gasses on the unfortunate masses sent to the camps, he did not use them on the field during battle. Now that I know this I am torn between two thoughts - this evil man must be brought down in the name of human rights and dignity, and why is it always America that has to step in and play this role? I'd be very content with Britain or France or Canada stepping up to the plate and toppling Assad if this is to be his fate. Rob

[iris lilies]

... I'd be very content with Britain or France or Canada stepping up to the plate and toppling Assad if this is to be his fate. Rob Why, I, too would be content with France or Canada doing this job. ;) Kinda their turn, don't you think?

[pinkytoe]

An elementary thought but if we were having a civil war here in America, would some foreign country send missiles our way? There is probably way more to this than any of us underlings will ever know. So bizarre to me too that we have all these instant photos of dead and dying Syrians who have been gassed. Where did those come from and why does media keep playing them over and over? Good thing Miley Cyrus is here to distract us from thinking too much about it.

[Rogar]

Seems to me like the issue is as much whether chemicals were used, as who used them. I can picture the rebels using them for precisely the sort of outcome that is developing. I am only partially educated on the issues, but have not seen any evidence the rebels offer any better government than the current regime.

It is odd to me how if it is the mid-east we seem to want to have a hand in things, but when it is something like genocide of an entire race in Africa, which seems as heinous as chemical weapons, we don't want to get involved. The Libertarian policies on involvement in foreign affairs could almost win me over. Almost.

[ApatheticNoMore]

I have taken it upon myself to become more educated about Syria and I understand the leader Assad has used some kind of gas on Syrians in a suburb of Damascus recently.

There is no proof of this. Assad *MAY* have used some kind of gas on Syrians recently. The UN inspections haven't gotten there yet (and were stopped perhaps by rebels? though I'm not sure it's 100% clear who is stopping them recently).


This according to the article I read, interestingly enough from the Wall Street Journal, puts Assad up there with Missoulini (sp?) and Saddam H, both of whom have done the same.

If so it puts them on the same category as the rebels in Syria whose side we will be taking in this civil war!!! We would be taking the side of the rebels, for whom there is actually more evidence that they have used poison gas (sarin) in the past than there is against Assad at present! See:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/05/us-syria-crisis-un-idUSBRE94409Z20130505

All sides may have taken their turn with the poison gas at this point. We don't know. Still I haven't conclusively heard the case made that such gasses are worse than say depleted uranium (and I've seen all the pictures of the deformities caused by the depleted uranium the U.S. left in Iraq) or white phospherous (probably used by the U.S. in Afghanistan for one thing).

100,000 have died in the Syrian civil war, times that times 10 and you get the number killed by the invasion and occupation of Iraq - 1 million. So if we go the invasion and occupation route, anyone think Syria is going to be a cakewalk compared to that cakewalk Iraq?

[ApatheticNoMore]

The Libertarian policies on involvement in foreign affairs could almost win me over. Almost.

A strong bias against U.S. intervention is very well thought out, it's not simplistic at all. As an absolute, eh meh I don't hold those as some kind of absolutes, as a *bias* ok. Err AGAINST WAR. Evaluate anew ok, but don't forget all this history we know about U.S. interventions. The motives the U.S. has for war are *NOT* humanitarian! Really, it there any basis for the belief U.S. foreign policy is being made on humanitarian grounds? 1 million dead in Iraq - that's U.S. humanitarianism. Nor are the *means* by which the U.S. wages war humanitarian. Wasn't it in Yemen that 2 civilians were killed for every 1 militant killed by drone. The U.S. uses and allows the U.S. of torture in war, it allows the use of extraordinary rendition to black sites in war (and the people who are renditioned this way, if might be one thing if they were all horribly guilty though it's still cruel and unusual, but random people seem to be randomly disappeared for awhile - renditioned, imprisoned, tortured). The U.S. govt doesn't CARE ABOUT minimizing civilian causalities (or the collateral bombing perpetrators would have gotten at least Manning's 35 years - and that is regardless of whether one thinks Manning should be serving the time). We pulled out of Iraq because we didn't want basic criminal penalties to apply if the U.S. was committing war crimes. Plus the track record the U.S. has for rebuilding countries it gets involved with is abysmal.

[bae]

So, WMDs and UN inspectors are involved? And news stories about Evil People?

Well, let's go to war then!

[Florence]

I sent emails to President Obama, Senator John Cornyn, Senator Ted Cruz, and Representative Pete Olson expressing my strong opposition to U.S. intervention in the Syrian civil war. So y'all can chill out, it's not gonna happen.

[ApatheticNoMore]

You pull the strings Florence :)

[catherine]

Here is a good article (http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/james-fallows-bombing-syria-just-dont): ApatheticNoMore, I was thinking of you when I read it...


In the face of evil we should do something, except when the something would likely make a bad situation worse.

[bae]

I've found several images of "inspectors" holding the "spent WMD shells". Here's one such:

http://syriareport.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/saraqeb.jpg

Any of you see anything wrong with that photo? I just this year completed some painful HAZMAT operator classes and certification exercises. I notice at least one odd thing...

I also came across some images/videos of the casualties, and chatted on the phone with a friend of mine who is in the military with USAMRICD. Some of those folks seem to exhibit the classic signs of exposure to some sort of acetylcholinesterase inhibitor. Sarin would be a logical candidate. If you look at the recommended actions in the ERG 2012, (#153), you'll see the "inspectors" don't have a copy of the orange book...

[catherine]

bae, I hate to be sound dumb but, what is your point?

[bae]

bae, I hate to be sound dumb but, what is your point?

That clearly some people have been hit with nerve agents of some type, but that all may not be as it seems, as some of the photos of the evidence seem, well, fabricated.

For instance, the ERG recommends positive pressure suits for coming near those "spent shells", and cordoning off a somewhat larger area than we are seeing.

I wouldn't place a bet on *who* let loose the "nerve gas", but it's pretty darned easy to make the stuff. (Remember the Aum Shinrikyo attacks in Japan?).

I'd take a step back and look at who might have motives for using it, before simply getting sucked into a war.

[catherine]

That clearly some people have been hit with nerve agents of some type, but that all may not be as it seems, as some of the photos of the evidence seem, well, fabricated.

For instance, the ERG recommends positive pressure suits for coming near those "spent shells", and cordoning off a somewhat larger area than we are seeing.

I wouldn't place a bet on *who* let loose the "nerve gas", but it's pretty darned easy to make the stuff. (Remember the Aum Shinrikyo attacks in Japan?).

I'd take a step back and look at who might have motives for using it, before simply getting sucked into a war.

I get it.. and I agree about jumping to conclusions.

[gimmethesimplelife]

How close are we to war, do you'all think? I don't like this at all to be honest, this time around if the US gets into it, it seems that there may be consequences for us..... Rob

[ApatheticNoMore]

Well there are certainly reports it could be very soon. I'd hope they come to their senses? I mean even if war it must be (though I am not sold on that), why ASAP, no time to investigate, no time to waste? I think there are always consequences for us (economic, police state, damaged soildiers, potential terrorist blowback). But true there are nuclear superpowers involved if one wanted to ponder hypothetical even worse consequences.

[Alan]

How close are we to war, do you'all think? I don't like this at all to be honest, this time around if the US gets into it, it seems that there may be consequences for us..... Rob
There are always consequences, usually coming from multiple sources.

The thing that bothers me the most about this one is that it's not humanitarian, it's not to effect regime change, it's political.

It seems odd to me that Syria would use chemical weapons when they knew that the rest of the world had laid down the stipulation that those weapons were the one thing they would not tolerate. It seems more likely that the rebels (whom we implicitly support), or some unknown third party did the deed in order to get international support for their cause, which our government obliges after the President goes on record with that goofy 'red line that must not be crossed' kabuki theater thing.

There seems to be more to this than we are allowed to know and I get the distinct impression that we are being played.

I'm also curious to see how we react. Both our President and Vice President are on record declaring that a President doesn't have the constitutional authority to attack another nation without Congressional approval, yet we're on the verge of doing that very thing. Under a Republican administration, Biden famously declared that he would lead an effort at impeachment if the President did such a thing. I wonder what it is about this situation that allows them to violate their stated principles and respect for the constitution?

Very strange.

[Zoebird]

I agree with Alan on this one.

[Maxamillion]

Personally, I think we should stay out of it. Let the Middle East handle its own problems. We don't need another war. That time, money, and effort would be better spent fixing things here at home.

[goldensmom]

There are always consequences, usually coming from multiple sources.

The thing that bothers me the most about this one is that it's not humanitarian, it's not to effect regime change, it's political.

It seems odd to me that Syria would use chemical weapons when they knew that the rest of the world had laid down the stipulation that those weapons were the one thing they would not tolerate. It seems more likely that the rebels (whom we implicitly support), or some unknown third party did the deed in order to get international support for their cause, which our government obliges after the President goes on record with that goofy 'red line that must not be crossed' kabuki theater thing.

There seems to be more to this than we are allowed to know and I get the distinct impression that we are being played.

I'm also curious to see how we react. Both our President and Vice President are on record declaring that a President doesn't have the constitutional authority to attack another nation without Congressional approval, yet we're on the verge of doing that very thing. Under a Republican administration, Biden famously declared that he would lead an effort at impeachment if the President did such a thing. I wonder what it is about this situation that allows them to violate their stated principles and respect for the constitution?

Very strange.


I agree with Alan on this one.

I also agree with Alan and there is definitely more to the story.

[puglogic]

Can anyone answer the simple question of why it is the responsibility of the US to intervene?

Sadly, I tend to agree. YES, it's deeply saddening and disturbing. But we can't afford to run around solving every problem the world has. I wish we'd just turn in our World Policeman badge and admit that these gazillion dollar efforts, while noble, aren't in our self-interest any more. Part of a multinational effort? Sure. But anything more than that, imho, would be ridiculous. Hopefully it's just more bluff and bluster, the stock in trade of presidents everywhere...

[CathyA]

I just heard that Russia is sending 2 warships to the area.
Let's start WWIII why don't we?

I find it curious also, that O'bama seems to be doing what he, personally, wants to do, and not going through the right channels.
I realize its a hard decision..........to see people being murdered and to just stand by..........sort of like the world did for awhile with the Nazi's. But like has been brought up, there have been lots of atrocities, but if it doesn't hit us in the pocketbook, then we don't get involved.

I'm glad I'm not the one making decisions. Maybe Obama realizes that Congress can't decide anything? Still, he should wait for the UN's approval.
Seems like we're always putting our noses in where we don't belong, yet not taking care of our own country very well.
Still........those pictures of all the dead children are very upsetting.....
But like Alan said, we're not for sure who actually did this.

[jp1]

There are always consequences, usually coming from multiple sources.

The thing that bothers me the most about this one is that it's not humanitarian, it's not to effect regime change, it's political.

It seems odd to me that Syria would use chemical weapons when they knew that the rest of the world had laid down the stipulation that those weapons were the one thing they would not tolerate. It seems more likely that the rebels (whom we implicitly support), or some unknown third party did the deed in order to get international support for their cause, which our government obliges after the President goes on record with that goofy 'red line that must not be crossed' kabuki theater thing.

There seems to be more to this than we are allowed to know and I get the distinct impression that we are being played.

I'm also curious to see how we react. Both our President and Vice President are on record declaring that a President doesn't have the constitutional authority to attack another nation without Congressional approval, yet we're on the verge of doing that very thing. Under a Republican administration, Biden famously declared that he would lead an effort at impeachment if the President did such a thing. I wonder what it is about this situation that allows them to violate their stated principles and respect for the constitution?

Very strange.

+1

I was listening to an interview of the president yesterday on npr and was just flabbergasted when he tried to paint it as absolutely imperative that we attack because of the chemical weapons. His basic concept was "because they've used these weapons we know the Assad regime has them and these weapons are very dangerous and either the regime could use them on us, or someone else could steal them and use them on us." So it basically boiled down to, someone could maybe, possibly, use these weapons against us so we need to go smack people around now to make sure that doesn't happen.

[bae]

I find it curious also, that O'bama seems to be doing what he, personally, wants to do, and not going through the right channels.

...

Maybe Obama realizes that Congress can't decide anything? Still, he should wait for the UN's approval.


Because, as a famous Constitutional Law professor, Obama knows ignoring Congress is the lawful approach...

[Rogar]

I just heard that Russia is sending 2 warships to the area.
Let's start WWIII why don't we?

Syria is also pals with Iran. It is scary to think how the cards might fall with just one little incident with a few Tomahawk missiles.

This is starting to ring similarities of Bush's WMD in Iraq.

[Gregg]

Syria is also pals with Iran. It is scary to think how the cards might fall with just one little incident with a few Tomahawk missiles.

This is starting to ring similarities of Bush's WMD in Iraq.

Whatever the Bush administration reasons for invading Iraq were (I always thought payback for treating 41 poorly), at least the President took the time to move through the proper channels. Congress approved the action. If memory serves me correctly Congress approved it twice. There are certainly similarities, but that strikes me as one glaring difference.

The US/Israel vs Syria/Iran/Russia set-up is almost too perfect a storm. I agree with Alan that it feels as if we're being played, but I'm not exactly sure what the goal of the game really is. Simple control of Middle Ease oil and/or oil ports and pipelines just seems so pedestrian.

[RosieTR]

Maybe we have really been embroiled in WWIII for the last decade+, and this is simply a new step. I am disappointed and surprised by Obama. Disappointed because I thought of him as having a cooler head than some, surprised that he may want to leave a legacy of war over a legacy of healing. Certainly pictures of dead, gassed children are disturbing but 1) bombing won't bring them back or even likely prevent a similar future incident and 2) there are plenty of photos of dead/dying children from problems that have easier and less expensive interventions (such as famine), yet we ignore those fairly regularly.

[CathyA]

I'm think he's reacting to seeing the dead children mostly. Then again, maybe he has info that the chemicals are now intended for the U.S.??
I think he knows more than we do (hopefully).

[bae]

Then again, maybe he has info that the chemicals are now intended for the U.S.??


It would be simpler to manufacture them here in your garage than to bother to make the stuff there and smuggle it in, frankly.

The processes are pretty darned simple, the necessary ingredients trivially purchased. (I believe I may have mentioned here before the Homeland-Security-required HAZMAT operator training for various first responder professions was basically a class in How To Be A Better Terrorist?)

[creaker]

The part I'm really confused with is - attack what? We're going to respond to violence against the people of Syria by committing violence against the people of Syria? Whatever we do, those most likely take the brunt of it will be innocent civilians.

[CathyA]

Supposedly they would aim for Syria's military bases............which are probably being filled up with innocents right now.
But how can anything be a secret anymore? Surely the government knows not to tell all its plans, since the whole world can see it. But.....when they hide anything, people get all upset.

[bae]

Surely the government knows not to tell all its plans, since the whole world can see it. But.....when they hide anything, people get all upset.

The people *should* get upset.

My state, for instance, has very strong regulations about transparency in government. The code (RCW 42.56.030) that sets out some of the regulations begins thusly:



The people of this state do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies that serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may maintain control over the instruments that they have created.


I see no reason for us to not be informed of the facts and reasoning behind our march to war in a faraway land against a power that is not launching an immediate attack against us. The Constitution provides for Congress *only* to declare war, presumably after public and open deliberations.

Maybe our constitutional law professor President should read the instructions.

[ApatheticNoMore]

But how can anything be a secret anymore? Surely the government knows not to tell all its plans, since the whole world can see it. But.....when they hide anything, people get all upset.

There are doing such a good job of hiding stuff in that case that they can't even get U.S. lapdogs like the UK on board. Britian is out as of today - voted DOWN (yea they have strange concepts over there like having parliment vote on wars). The so called "coalition" seems to be falling apart fast. What if they had a war and nobody came?

[CathyA]

I'm just saying that in today's world of information spreading around the world so easily, it must be hard to plan any kind of attack.......right or wrong.
I can think of some instances where that lack of transparency would be vital.

[Alan]

Now that the UK has taken itself out of the picture, I'm wondering if the President will just do an Emily Litella and say 'Never Mind'.

I believe anything we might do is time sensitive since the President has indicated that he wants to have it over and forgotten by the time he arrives at the G20 summit in Russia next week, and, since I think they'll have a real problem coming up with an timely attack plan that is "just muscular enough not to get mocked" but not so devastating that it would prompt a response from Syrian allies Iran and Russia." (http://www.latimes.com/world/middleeast/la-fg-obama-dilemma-20130828,4290748,4583001,full.story)

To me, the question now is whether or not the President will actually go through with his desire to show how big his balls are, or will he learn not to make threats with no intention of following through.

At this point, my money's on Emily.

[gimmethesimplelife]

Alan's comment above serves to show me how behind the curve I am in world events. The last I knew, due to the Snowden Affair, Obama was not going to go to the G20 Summit. Sometime since Russia's granting Snowden asylum, it seems as if Obama has changed his mind. I'm not critical of this, I'm just saying I'm behind the curve on world events. And I'm wondering if maybe that is not such a bad place to be, behind the curve on this one.....

[Zoebird]

The people *should* get upset.

My state, for instance, has very strong regulations about transparency in government. The code (RCW 42.56.030) that sets out some of the regulations begins thusly:



I see no reason for us to not be informed of the facts and reasoning behind our march to war in a faraway land against a power that is not launching an immediate attack against us. The Constitution provides for Congress *only* to declare war, presumably after public and open deliberations.

Maybe our constitutional law professor President should read the instructions.

completely agree.

i keep bringing up to people that the whole of the government is an instrument of the people, not vice-versa.

[IshbelRobertson]

Mr Cameron was desperate to join Mr Obama's coalition. He has been defeated and by members of his own party allying themselves with the Opposition, he is probably mortified that he couldn't do a Tony bLiar and ride rough-shod over the expressed wishes of many UK voters.

My simplistic view? Offer Turkey 'rent' for the barely productive area of their border region with Syria, where there are already refugee camps. We, in the West will ensure that those still within Syria are made aware of this well-run, well-provisioned zone and that those under threat will be well looked after, medically, educationally etc. THEN let the numpties of all stripes tear lumps off one another within their OWN borders and when the dust settles? We deal, pragmatically, with the victors.

It would certainly be the cheapest and most humanitarian option and might go some way to alleviating the view in that region that USA are in league with the devil and that we in the UK are almost as bad for our role as the USA's poodle. We appear to be the two most hated countries in the world at present.

[Yossarian]

Maybe our constitutional law professor President should read the instructions.

It seems he thought about it before:


The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.

- Barack Obama

http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/obama-and-biden-have-said-military-action-without-congressio






It's been amusing listening to liberal radio try to grapple with this.

[ApatheticNoMore]

Well isn't it legally the case that even if they get congressional approval they'd still be violating the Constitution? Because treaties have the highest force of law right? The U.S. is signatory to treaties preventing this type of unilateral aggression. It's why people said the Iraq war was *illegal* (of course it was also a disaster).

I'm more obsessed with the procedural stuff when the procedure is the whole very essence of the thing, the bill of rights, proper procedures are the *whole* enchelada since most of them are by their very nature procedural (ie either a speedy trial is given or it's not, either habius corpus is followed or it's not). None guarantees perfect justice (or even much justice at all perhaps, if the system is corrupt enough), but the procedure there is the whole of the protection. War is more than procedural, it's the unleashing of carnage, and I'm opposed to it even if congress votes for it. But the congressional vote is a speed bump.

[bae]

Because treaties have the highest force of law right?

Wrong.

[HappyHiker]

The U.S. didn't intervene in Rwanda in 1994 when 20,000 citizens were slaughtered....even though Congress was in favor of intervention for humanitarian purposes.

According to this article http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Africa/2009/0407/p06s14-woaf.html this lack of involvement was because "we had no national interests in that country".... so we watched as 20,000 were killed.

What makes Syria different? What's our "national interest" there? Why are we humanitarians in this instance but not before?

[Yossarian]

I guess the Rwandans didn't dis' the wrong guy.

[Selah]

If anyone is interested in the issue of Syria and possible "unintended consequences," follow my link in my signature below to my blog post today, which can show you what the inside of our building's bomb shelter looks like. I just don't understand why the U.S. seems so dead set to take military action against Syria. Hasn't there been enough bloodshed and destruction all around this region already? Even the U.K. government got cold feet and listened to its people saying "enough!"

[bae]

If anyone is interested in the issue of Syria and possible "unintended consequences," follow my link in my signature below to my blog post today, which can show you what the inside of our building's bomb shelter looks like.

That's a great post, and a nifty blog, thanks for sharing your impressions!

I suspect the majority of American citizens aren't keen on engaging in warfare with Syria at the moment.

Anyone here - raise your hand if you'd enlist to go over to fight right now, or send your kids off to do so...

[Zoebird]

No. I'm definitely not interested in going into Syria. I wasn't interested in Iraq, and I wasn't sure that Afghanistan was a good idea either. I was definitely against what was happening in Guantanamo Bay.

Honestly, I think that this particular conservative agenda (a neo-con agenda) needs to be abandoned. I am all for "traditional" republicanism which is isolationist, supporting our allies and that's just about that.

[bae]

A few months ago, a major federal highway bridge on I5 here in the state of Washington collapsed. Messing up transport in the region, and cutting off the main north-south route to our Canadian trading partners. A state of emergency was declared for the involved counties. They had to scrape the bottom of the barrel to find a few pennies to make temporary repairs.

With our rotting national infrastructure, somehow we think it's a good idea to fund our military with more money than basically the rest of the planet combined, and then send it out to waste billions of $$$ bombing and invading other countries to no result.

This conservative is sickened by it.


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e2/05-23-13_Skagit_Bridge_Collapse.jpg/800px-05-23-13_Skagit_Bridge_Collapse.jpg

[bae]

Here's a nice article in The Atlantic:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/08/A-Power-Barack-Obama-Does-Not-Have/279212/

[Yossarian]

Here's a nice article in The Atlantic:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/08/A-Power-Barack-Obama-Does-Not-Have/279212/

Does everyone agree that the use of gas is so qualitatively different than using other means of killing that it justifies things that other types of killing don't? Kill 20,000 Rwandans with machetes and that's not a reason to act. Or 100,000 Syrians with bullets and artillery fire, bad but not real bad. But 1,000 Syrians killed with gas, well then all bets are off. That makes you a monster in some way that ordering the firebombing raids that kill 25,000 in Germany or 100,000 in Tokyo doesn't?

[Yossarian]

This part was interesting too:


President Bill Clinton committed U.S. forces to intervention in the former Yugoslavia, and never sought authorization. In Kosovo, there was no Security Council resolution, but Clinton claimed to be acting under the NATO Treaty and at the request of the other nations of the Balkans.

What does other countries requesting it have to do with Constitutional authority?

[bae]

Does everyone agree that the use of gas is so qualitatively different than using other means of killing that it justifies things that other types of killing don't?

I don't. It all depends on the circumstances.

[Gregg]

Being a complete and total cynic I've been trying to think of exactly who stands to benefit the most from a US intervention. Who wields so high a level of influence that they could push the US hard enough to go it alone when no other UN member is willing to join and 91% of the American public say stay out? The only two I've been able to come up with are Big Defense Contractors and Big Oil. With Iraq and Afghanistan winding down Big-D needs a good skirmish or they're going to have to lay some folks off. Big Oil gets the benefit of a certain price spike with any action in the Middle East and since so many major oil pipelines are in close proximity to Syria it would sure be dandy to have a presence there to keep an eye on things. These days the President is acting less like a politician (which was bad enough) and more like a sock puppet...JMO.

[iris lilies]

Does everyone agree that the use of gas is so qualitatively different than using other means of killing that it justifies things that other types of killing don't?...

No, and I've never bought into the sanity of setting rules of war. I think that is just humans deluding themselves that they retain a semblance of evolved civilization. It's a lie and possibly group insanity.

But in this case, isn't it this no-gas restriction that of the U.N.'s? Shouldn't we honor that? Unless you are also saying that the U.N. is a weak, useless, bag of ____ and should be ignored. Well. Oh wait. Wait, I think I see....:D

[Yossarian]

Being a complete and total cynic I've been trying to think of exactly who stands to benefit the most from a US intervention.

I would think the Saudis and the Israelis benefit to the extent it takes down an ally of Iran, but not from this misplayed hand that makes a mockery of the whole red line nonsense. Verdict: Iran has nukes soon.

[iris lilies]

This is the first time in a generation that the Democrats are taking their place as the war monger party. The younguns' here don't remember when the Dems had that moniker.

And this is the first time in--what, forever? Well, since the tizzy in the mid-18th Century, that the U.K. hasn't stood with the U.S. on world war matters, stood united.

Mr. Obama is indeed bringing a lot of Change to the position of President of the U.S.

[Gregg]

Verdict: Iran has nukes soon.

My spin? Israel goes (significantly) preemptive first.

[razz]

One can bash the Dems and the Repubs as your bias indicates but the closing argument is that nothing, no intervention, no action or anything that anyone can do in that area of the Middle East is going to make a difference.

No cause, control or cure for madness such as this. It is humanly manufactured and until humans choose differently, .... save your money, lives and breath.

Hard to feel this way and not anguish for those who are suffering.

[Yossarian]

Mr. Obama is indeed bringing a lot of Change to the position of President of the U.S.

LOL, they made fun of W's international coalition. At least he had congressional approval and more than 1 ally. The way this charade is being played it almost makes W look like a statesman.:laff:

[redfox]

Does everyone agree that the use of gas is so qualitatively different than using other means of killing that it justifies things that other types of killing don't? Kill 20,000 Rwandans with machetes and that's not a reason to act. Or 100,000 Syrians with bullets and artillery fire, bad but not real bad. But 1,000 Syrians killed with gas, well then all bets are off. That makes you a monster in some way that ordering the firebombing raids that kill 25,000 in Germany or 100,000 in Tokyo doesn't?

I have struggled with this. Yes, I do believe it's bad enough to warrant some kind of response. It is genocide, and a crime against humanity. What response? I do not know. Why do we kill people who are killing people to show that killing people is wrong?

On NPR just awhile ago, the reports are that the Syrian military is moving it's weapons and personnel into universities and residential neighborhoods -- the human shield writ large. This is despicable. I do not know the best response. It sickens me all around.

[redfox]

LOL, they made fun of W's international coalition. At least he had congressional approval and more than 1 ally. The way this charade is being played it almost makes W look like a statesman.:laff:

Yes, well he & his people lied to get there. We know that now, and his comportment has assured the discomfort many are feeling for even debating action. It's really sad.

[Alan]

Yes, well he & his people lied to get there. We know that now, and his comportment has assured the discomfort many are feeling for even debating action. It's really sad.
The irony is, the chemical weapons used in Syria this past week may well be the same chemical weapons he 'lied' about, and President Clinton warned us about during his administration.

[Zoebird]

A few months ago, a major federal highway bridge on I5 here in the state of Washington collapsed. Messing up transport in the region, and cutting off the main north-south route to our Canadian trading partners. A state of emergency was declared for the involved counties. They had to scrape the bottom of the barrel to find a few pennies to make temporary repairs.

With our rotting national infrastructure, somehow we think it's a good idea to fund our military with more money than basically the rest of the planet combined, and then send it out to waste billions of $$$ bombing and invading other countries to no result.

This conservative is sickened by it.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e2/05-23-13_Skagit_Bridge_Collapse.jpg/800px-05-23-13_Skagit_Bridge_Collapse.jpg

Agreed.

Also where I think we can take teens and young people who are out of work -- get them skills, get them working on the infrastructure, get our country back to order. Take care of affairs at home -- we have enough to be getting on with.

[Lainey]

Oh how quickly we try to forget -
Lies the Bush administration told us about Iraq:
1) Iraq had something to do with 9/11 and/or Al Qaeda.
2) Iraq illegally possessed chemical and biological weapons which were a threat to the U.S. and/or its allies.
3) Iraq was fast pursuing and might even already possess the means to build and deliver a nuclear bomb.
4) Occupying Iraq would be a "cakewalk" but we would also find in the aftermath a nation full of people who would welcome us and cooperate fully in the rebuilding of their country.
5) Iraq was a nation which, with U.S. aid and guidance, could within a short time become a democratic model for the rest of the region.

that said, I agree with redfox, it's a sad and sickening situation at this point.

[Zoebird]

doesn't matter who is the president or from which party, there is spin in the government and that's that. might as well just look at it and assert that it's the case. Been the case for a long, long time.

[ApatheticNoMore]

I have struggled with this. Yes, I do believe it's bad enough to warrant some kind of response. It is genocide, and a crime against humanity.

It's civil war. Yes it's killing innocents (regardless of who did it), but that is kind of what modern war does. By the way much of what the rebels do could be described as genocide - they definitely target specific groups. I don't have a problem in theory with rules of war, just with how practical the enforcement is (yes if enforcement requires war and even very convenient war really waged for other reasons, but also considering the rules are never enforced against say the U.S.. Basically there is no consistent enforcement).

This is the damage caused by depleted uranium used by the U.S. (since dead children are apparently the thing):
http://www.mindfully.org/Nucs/2003/DU-Baby2003.htm

If there was a ground war the U.S. would use it again (I don't think it's used for air bombing?). Are chemical weapons worse? At least their half-life is less.


Why do we kill people who are killing people to show that killing people is wrong?

sooner or later, it's all just absurdity isn't it? It makes no sense. Killing MORE innocents (and there will be "collateral damage") to prove that killing innocents is bad.

Plans to remove Assad? Well that would at least be a reason for war, although who knows how endlessly costly, more than it's worth IMO. But just sending a message as if war was a form of communication ... how do you know that message will be taken, how do you know other messages won't be taken (like for Iran to nuke up, like that the U.S. is the great Satan etc. - supposedly the majority of Syrians support their government, we may not be greeted as liberators).


and his comportment has assured the discomfort many are feeling for even debating action. It's really sad.

One million dead Iraqis is sad. A reluctance to go to war (at long last!!!!), and agressive war at that, is not sad at all, it's usually a very good thing, and it's realistic.


These days the President is acting less like a politician (which was bad enough) and more like a sock puppet

sock puppet perhaps. Of MIC? Of spooks? Don't know. Honestly I think the Obama and admin are positively deranged at this point, time to apply to the looney bin. Talk about a countries run by a madman who can't be reasoned with. I've often said Obama was evil, but evil is one thing, lately the whole administration is just plain "nuttier than the fruit pie".

[bae]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htz9CS-Zmms

Words to live by...

[Florence]

I was just thinking that already the Assad regime has killed 100,000 of "his own people" with guns and bombs but we must intervene when he kills 1400 when chemicals. I guess there are more and less acceptable ways to make people dead. Don't get me wrong, I think gassing people is an atrocity but shooting them, denying them medical aid, starving, and bombing them is pretty awful too. It's a really bad world out there.

[Rogar]

I was just thinking that already the Assad regime has killed 100,000 of "his own people" with guns and bombs but we must intervene when he kills 1400 when chemicals. I guess there are more and less acceptable ways to make people dead. Don't get me wrong, I think gassing people is an atrocity but shooting them, denying them medical aid, starving, and bombing them is pretty awful too. It's a really bad world out there.

I think the theory behind chemical warfare being unacceptable is that it is typically used against defenseless civilians, in this case was indiscriminate and included several hundred children, and at least historically has caused lingering and painful death. In WWI when mustard gas was used, there was a saying among the soldiers that it was better to charge against machine guns than wait for the gas attacks in the trenches.

Combat itself is ugly, but I agree that there should be some moral limits, especially when it involves intentional harm to innocent children. For example, would it be different if it were anthrax? If there were not some sort of check and balance, would it become more and more acceptable?

Whether the U.S. should be the global policeman is another issue. It looks like Great Britain has abandoned their rule Britania stance and has shrunk back to deal with their own poor economy.

[pinkytoe]

I always wonder why humans spend so much capital of all types going to war. We could have a magnificent world with plenty for all but instead we keep doing the same thing over and over - fighting over power, resources, religion...it is so frustrating!! Perhaps there is another planet where tolerance and peace exist?

[Gregg]

I think the theory behind chemical warfare being unacceptable is that it is typically used against defenseless civilians, in this case was indiscriminate and included several hundred children, and at least historically has caused lingering and painful death.

Agreed. In the case of chemical and certain other WMDs I think "indiscriminate" is the key word to describe why a not necessarily red line is crossed with their use.

[creaker]

I really disagree with the action administration intends to take - it's like we're going to punish an abusive father not by removing the father but by beating his kids. Innocents civilians will bear the brunt of any military strike - but it sounds like we will go no further than the strike itself.

[Yossarian]

Agreed. In the case of chemical and certain other WMDs I think "indiscriminate" is the key word to describe why a not necessarily red line is crossed with their use.

I think you can pretty effectively kill civilians with indiscriminate use of a lot of things.


Government-ordered indiscriminate shelling. It means that day after day, civilians have become unwitting players in a conflict that was not theirs, victims of a kind of collective punishment by a regime targeting its own citizens. I’ve seen war before, but I don’t understand this strategy. Citadels of government force lie surrounded by valleys of a rebel population, both martial and innocent. Rebels fire crude artillery toward encircled regime military bases. When the regime fires back, it is erratic, aimed at nothing but people, whoever they may be.

Amid talk of chemical weapons, red lines, and jihadis, what is forgotten is the fact that the largest numbers of Syrians being killed are people outside combat, in their gardens, in small towns like this one. We are now in the third year of bloodshed. There have been 93,000 killed, according to the United Nations; as many as 120,000, according to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights. The truth is, we don’t know how many, because there are so many, most of them civilians.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2013/06/26/in-syria-s-villages-regime-shells-aim-for-civilians.html

[ApatheticNoMore]

I was just thinking that already the Assad regime has killed 100,000 of "his own people" with guns and bombs

I think that 100k figure is the entire total of the civil war, not just the Assad regime, though I have not seen a breakdown and would easily believe more than 50% is the Assad regime The first couple months of the invasion of Iraq killed that many. My point here is actually less: "see the U.S. govt. is bad too nana nana nana", although knowing what the U.S. can do figures strongly in my thinking about another war. But it's more if an invasion was attempted how do we know that *won't* be the death total? Does anyone consider Syria an easy win if they really wanted to overthrow Assad?


I think the theory behind chemical warfare being unacceptable is that it is typically used against defenseless civilians, in this case was indiscriminate and included several hundred children, and at least historically has caused lingering and painful death.

It's indiscriminate. But is that so different than a drone aimed at a target that kills more innocent people than it does targets?


In WWI when mustard gas was used, there was a saying among the soldiers that it was better to charge against machine guns than wait for the gas attacks in the trenches.

well the suffering is an interesting question, whether or not it's a more painful way to die, but I think someone who say has limbs blown off but is still alive for a while afterward suffers plenty.


Combat itself is ugly, but I agree that there should be some moral limits, especially when it involves intentional harm to innocent children.

I have no problem if moral limits had ways of being enforced that weren't so easily gamed. Signing on to treaties ok, but what are the treaties backed by? Just good will? Mutually Assured Destruction? That's not a bad one where power is relatively equalized. You use x then I will too ... Unilateral force applied at whim ultimately governed by might makes right, as seems to be the case at present? Well that is pretty ugly.


For example, would it be different if it were anthrax? If there were not some sort of check and balance, would it become more and more acceptable?

It apparently is acceptable. Anarchy (in the pejorative use of the term) has always been - by which I mean the powerful do whatever the heck they want, have seldom been bound by any laws. If drones are killing more civilians than targets it's already acceptable. Clusterbombs, landmines, depleted uranium, white phosphorous all already acceptable. U.S. backing of Iraqi use of poison gas in Iran was acceptable. Rebels in Syria previously probably using poison gas themselves apparently acceptable Or is the problem that this stuff is no longer confined to the powerful or their "allies" and even the scruffy little countries think they can use it against their own citizens? True if even scruffy little countries use it the death toll increases, the number of innocent dead increases, yea even the number of dead children increases. So one could very well argue that's a bad thing. But one can't pretend that these things were somehow "unacceptable" before when they weren't, they were just more confined. By the way if one wants to argue that more countries using it is a bad thing and should thus be prevented, at present a lot of countries will still probably think they can get away with this if the U.S. has no economic/strategic interest in them, and they'd probably be right. U.S. policy is probably too tainted to even represent principle if it wanted to.

[SvenV]

It is a very hard decision that the US government must make. The Russians and the Chinese supports Asad and I think they never gonna change that. So a united attack is far away from any possibility. UK don't want to help. " It is not our war" they say. I can understand that. Why help a country that is so far away? Because there get so many people, children, killed day after day. Now since 2 years. So who can stop this? Politics discussion? No way, never. So the only thing would be to attack Asad, to help the people get rid of him. I hate war, but I think that is the only way.... Because it is hard to say let them do what they like, what does it care?.... A good quote from Albert Einstein for the end: The world is not threatened by evil people, but by those who allow evil to take place.

[Rogar]

ANM, the morality of using chemical weapons is certainly a judgement call, especially in comparison to other means that at least seem on the surface to be as bad. There is an international law or agreement that has made the judgement call that bans the use of chemical weapons. It is basically a breach of international law. There has been an international effort to destroy chemical weapon stockpiles.

That's not to say it's any more morally objectionable than other weapons, but it is what the international community thinks.

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

[ApatheticNoMore]

If Congress approves the Presidents war request it will mean ground troops can be sent in. By which I mean it will give the ok for ground troops plus possible war with neighboring states (Iran etc.). The vote is NOT just about limited "surgical strikes" to "send a message" to Syria - it authorizes major war.

Or that's *a* legal interpretation anyway. And frankly though I haven't seen the whole bill, in plain English I can't see why not:
http://www.lawfareblog.com/2013/09/the-administrations-proposed-syria-aumf-is-very-broad/

And that's how the Presidency, perhaps especially this Presidency, interprets laws - anything not very strictly prohibited is allowed (for the powers that be, not for the peons of course).

Stop this war!!!! Or even if we have a very limited air war and so on we need a much narrower bill than this. Although the fastest path to that is: stop this war!

Ok I have better things to do on this nice long hot weekend than to worry about our corrupt evil moron-head leaders starting WWIII (or at least Iraq 2.0) but contact your congressperson (or do more than that if you feel so inclined).

[Yossarian]

Sorry this is a little long but thought this was all a pretty good:

http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/john-kerry-1971-vs-2013/

John Kerry: 1971 vs. 2013

By Eric Boehm | Watchdog.org

In 1971, John Kerry was at the center of one of the great anti-war demonstrations in American history. His testimony before Congress was a crucial element in turning public opinion against the war in Vietnam.

On Friday afternoon, Kerry was again giving a much-watched public speech in Washington, D.C. But the one-time “winter soldier” who was willing to straight-talk Congress about the bloody quagmire in Southeast Asia has changed his tune about America’s role in international conflicts.

Here’s three side-by-side comparisons of Kerry in 1971 vs. Kerry in 2013:

In 1971, Kerry said America’s involvement in Vietnam was never about national security:
“In our opinion, and from our experience, there is nothing in South Vietnam, nothing which could happen that realistically threatens the United States of America. And to attempt to justify the loss of one American life in Vietnam, Cambodia, or Laos by linking such loss to the preservation of freedom, which those misfits supposedly abuse is to us the height of criminal hypocrisy, and it is that kind of hypocrisy which we feel has torn this country apart.”

In 2013, Kerry said America’s involvement in Syria was about national security:
“It matters deeply to the credibility and the future interests of the United States of America and our allies…. And make no mistake, in an increasingly complicated world of sectarian and religious extremist violence, what we choose to do or not do matters in real ways to our own security.”

In 1971, Kerry said America lost its sense of morality by bombing villages in Vietnam:
“We rationalized destroying villages in order to save them. We saw America lose her sense of morality as she accepted very coolly a My Lai and refused to give up the image of American soldiers who hand out chocolate bars and chewing gum.”

In 2013, Kerry said America must bomb villages in Syria, because of our sense of morality:
“It is also profoundly about who we are. We are the United States of America. We are the country that has tried, not always successfully, but always tried to honor a set of universal values around which we have organized our lives and our aspirations.
MORE WAR: As Secretary of State, John Kerry laid out the case for America to go to war with Syria.

“This crime against conscience, this crime against humanity, this crime against the most fundamental principles of international community, against the norm of the international community, this matters to us.

“And it matters to who we are. And it matters to leadership and to our credibility in the world.”

In 1971, Kerry said America should stay out of internal civil wars in other nations – no matter how bad they might be – because history shows that is the right thing to do.
“The war will continue. So what I am saying is that yes, there will be some recrimination but far, far less than the 200,000 a year who are murdered by the United States of America, and we can’t go around — President Kennedy said this, many times. He said that the United States simply can’t right every wrong, that we can’t solve the problems of the other 94 percent of mankind. We didn’t go into East Pakistan; we didn’t go into Czechoslovakia. Why then should we feel that we now have the power to solve the internal political struggles of this country?
We have to let them solve their problems while we solve ours and help other people in an altruistic fashion commensurate with our capability. But we have extended that capacity; we have exhausted that capacity, Senator. So I think the question is really moot.”

In 2013, Kerry said America must intervene in what he admits is an internal civil war in another nation, because history shows that is the right thing to do:
“But fatigue does not absolve us of our responsibility. Just longing for peace does not necessarily bring it about. And history would judge us all extraordinarily harshly if we turned a blind eye to a dictator’s wanton use of weapons of mass destruction against all warnings, against all common understanding of decency, these things we do know.

“We also know that we have a president that does what he says that he will do. And he has said, very clearly, that whatever decision he makes in Syria it will bear no resemblance to Afghanistan, Iraq or even Libya. It will not involve any boots on the ground. It will not be open ended. And it will not assume responsibility for a civil war that is already well underway.”

[Alan]

I saw Kerry on TV yesterday where he said that he had been tasked with making a case for action against Syria. He's simply doing what he's told in order to prevent the President from looking weak.

The cynic in me believes that the President's "Don't call my bluff" strategy isn't playing out very well. In order to appear strong and decisive, he drew a red line in the sand. When it was crossed, and our strongest allies refused to step in and share the heat, he was faced with a dilemma, how to shift responsibility for action or inaction to other parties. Now we wait for Congress to go back into session so that they can take responsibility for whatever we do.

If the UN or Great Britain had thrown their support behind him last week, he never would have shifted the responsibility to Congress, regardless of the Constitutional requirement that they approve of an attack on another country. Regardless of the outcome, I'm convinced that our Republic is in it's death throes, we're no longer a nation ruled by the force of law, we're ruled by the whims of men.

[iris lilies]

Since I don't want this country involved in military action in Syria, I'm happy that the Prez is throwing this at Congress. Hope they continue to perform as they've been, butting heads and grandstanding and playing politics. In other words, am hoping they continue their ineffective leadership and no action results. No action in this case is a good thing.

[Yossarian]

Now we wait for Congress to go back into session so that they can take responsibility for whatever we do.


Will be interesting if Congress for political reasons denies him cover for backing down. You would then have Mr. Peace Prize 1) committing an act of war against a foreign country with no meaningful international consensus and maybe, if he continues to get out maneuvered politically, in contravention of a UN resolution, or 2) backing down from his red line threat.

[peggy]

Yeah...yeah! What a HORRIBLE President to even think of acting without the consent of congress...I mean, there's this constitution and all, and and god love the flag and patriotic gun wearing and this commie socialist Muslim President thinks he can...can...wait...what?
Uh...what a WIMP! Asking congress to take on this HORRIBLE burden, which is their job...but, he is such a weak President...and I disagree. I DISAGREE I tell ya. Whatever it is, I disagree STRONGLY cause, you know, I have these standards and all....

Sheesh! How completely unsurprising is THIS reaction from some of our posters. I do believe the price of credibility has dropped to about $0. I wonder how that trades on the open (voting) market! And people wonder why the republicans need to rig the elections!!Splat!

[bae]

http://irrlichtirc.g0dsoft.com/rooly/pictures/wargarble.jpg

You go girl!

[Alan]

Yeah...yeah! What a HORRIBLE President to even think of acting without the consent of congress...I mean, there's this constitution and all....
Of course, adhering to the constitution is a good thing as it is the only limit on government. I'm pleased that the President has decided not to overstep his authority after initially indicating that he would bypass the process.

I think something should be done in Syria and I'm happy that we may now be going about determining what that something is, using proper channels.

What bothers me is that his initial response, threatening to act without congressional approval, seems to have been based on ego and the belief that our allies would stand behind him in the event that Syria called his bluff. I've never been a fan of his style so I find it refreshing to see how this emperor reacts when the masses see he's missing his clothes.

[Yossarian]

I think something should be done in Syria

What? And by who?

[nswef]

Sometimes backing down is the smart move. In this case I feel we are again being bamboozled into thinking that war will fix things. War hardly ever fixes anything. I can see all the Haliburton type groups grinning with glee that now they can make even more money from our stupidity. When will we ever learn, when will we ever learn?? ( Hum along...)

[iris lilies]

Yeah...yeah! What a HORRIBLE President to even think of acting without the consent of congress...I mean, there's this constitution and all, and and god love the flag and patriotic gun wearing and this commie socialist Muslim President thinks he can...can...wait...what?
Uh...what a WIMP! Asking congress to take on this HORRIBLE burden, which is their job...but, he is such a weak President...and I disagree. I DISAGREE I tell ya. Whatever it is, I disagree STRONGLY cause, you know, I have these standards and all....

Sheesh! How completely unsurprising is THIS reaction from some of our posters. I do believe the price of credibility has dropped to about $0. I wonder how that trades on the open (voting) market! And people wonder why the republicans need to rig the elections!!Splat!

It's hard for me to interpret your meaning here. So, I just won't try.

[Alan]

What? And by who?
The two most pertinent questions of the day. From a humanitarian point of view, the protection of innocents is a priority. From a political point of view a semblance of stability is essential.
I'm not sure an act of war on our part is the answer to either viewpoint although the citizens of Syria and their immediate neighbors should make that call.

[goldensmom]

Yeah...yeah! What a HORRIBLE President to even think of acting without the consent of congress...I mean, there's this constitution and all, and and god love the flag and patriotic gun wearing and this commie socialist Muslim President thinks he can...can...wait...what?
Uh...what a WIMP! Asking congress to take on this HORRIBLE burden, which is their job...but, he is such a weak President...and I disagree. I DISAGREE I tell ya. Whatever it is, I disagree STRONGLY cause, you know, I have these standards and all....

Sheesh! How completely unsurprising is THIS reaction from some of our posters. I do believe the price of credibility has dropped to about $0. I wonder how that trades on the open (voting) market! And people wonder why the republicans need to rig the elections!!Splat!

Ahhhhhh.....what???? In no way could I follow that convoluted comment. Can anyone else decipher this or is it just me?

[iris lilies]

Ahhhhhh.....what???? In no way could I follow that convoluted comment. Can anyone else decipher this or is it just me?

She's angry about something, that's for sure. But that's not the core.

WharrGarble is a pretty good summary. From Urban Dictionary:

A one-word stand-in for any angry, incoherent, pointless reaction, comment, or attack... is often used to make the point that someone's position is incoherent, illogical, and or pointless. Simply writing 'WHARRGARBL' is also sufficient to make the point, and is especially effective if the target of your insult is one of the few people unfamiliar with the loldog.

Note that incoherence or pointlessness is required for a proper WHARRGARBL reference. An angry, but otherwise logical, argument is not a WHARRGARBL. An argument that takes a reasonable (or at least arguable) position, but does so with an incoherent rant IS a valid WHARRGARBL.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=wharrgarbl

[Tradd]

I just emailed my Senators (D & R) and Congresswoman (D), expressing my opinion that we NOT go into Syria.

[creaker]

Ahhhhhh.....what???? In no way could I follow that convoluted comment. Can anyone else decipher this or is it just me?

Disclaimer: the comment I'm about to make has nothing to do with what's been said on this thread, I haven't been following it close enough to comment on it specifically.

However, in my opinion, in the media, there was a heavy stream of criticism of the President trying to go around Congress on the issue of attacking Syria and when the President said he would be going to Congress on this issue the stream of criticism did not decrease or even take a breather, it merely shifted to other criticisms. Which I think is what Peggy was alluding to (and correct me if I was wrong).

I think there is a large contingent out there condemning Obama not based on his actions but because he is Obama. If he was a waiter, and these folks were ordering, he would be told he totally screwed up their order regardless of what he brought to the table.

[Yossarian]

I think there is a large contingent out there condemning Obama not based on his actions but because he is Obama.

Whatever. I'm sure "out there" you can find a contingent who thinks Obama is a space alien. Do YOU think this is the proper way to conduct US foreign policy?

[creaker]

Whatever. I'm sure "out there" you can find a contingent who thinks Obama is a space alien. Do YOU think this is the proper way to conduct US foreign policy?

Do you mean going to Congress for approval verses not going to Congress for approval?

He's been pushing to attack (not that I agree, but what the best thing is to do is a bit beyond me), building a case for it, got pushback to get approval from Congress, and now he is seeking approval from Congress. That doesn't sound very out there to me, and to me it actually sounds like the proper way to do it.

If seeking approval from Congress was not an issue, why would people say it was? And if seeking approval from Congress was actually an issue, isn't that at least for now resolved? He's seeking approval.

[Zoebird]

Disclaimer: the comment I'm about to make has nothing to do with what's been said on this thread, I haven't been following it close enough to comment on it specifically.

However, in my opinion, in the media, there was a heavy stream of criticism of the President trying to go around Congress on the issue of attacking Syria and when the President said he would be going to Congress on this issue the stream of criticism did not decrease or even take a breather, it merely shifted to other criticisms. Which I think is what Peggy was alluding to (and correct me if I was wrong).

I think there is a large contingent out there condemning Obama not based on his actions but because he is Obama. If he was a waiter, and these folks were ordering, he would be told he totally screwed up their order regardless of what he brought to the table.

I agree with this evaluation -- that's how I saw peggy's statement, too.

Same happened with Bush, though, too. And Clinton, and Bush, and Reagan. . . etc. Ain't nothing new going on in Washington!

[ApatheticNoMore]

Saw full text of Obama's legislation for military action in Syria (Syrian AUMF). Not much to it, my prior interpretation stands. It authorizes boots on the ground for sure should Obama want them with no further congressional authorization needed, it also possibly authorizes war on other countries (Iran etc.). If they could be shown to have a connection with the alleged use of chemical weapons by Syria (however dubious this connection may be - the point is the law is SO broad that they don't need to go back to congress)

http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/31/us/obama-authorization-request-text/index.html

[gimmethesimplelife]

For some reason I can't get the reply button to work so that I can reply directly to what another poster has posted.....

I really like what Creaker posted, coming from my background as a waiter for more years than I care to admit to. She stated that if Obama were a waiter, and those condemning Obama were ordering, he would be told he totally screwed up the order regardless of what he brought to the table. THIS IS GOLD at least to me. What an interesting way to put this and so very accurate, as least as how I'm seeing it, your post is.....Damned if he does, damned if he doesn't. I really wonder under those conditions under the long term does one even expect him to care that much? I know this is horrible, what I just posted, but is he not a human? If you cut him does he not bleed? I have been continuing to support Obama even though I'm less than enthused about the spying scandal and the IRS scandal and here Creaker has made the whole situation seem human and relatable to me now. Thank you for that! Rob

[gimmethesimplelife]

Yeah...yeah! What a HORRIBLE President to even think of acting without the consent of congress...I mean, there's this constitution and all, and and god love the flag and patriotic gun wearing and this commie socialist Muslim President thinks he can...can...wait...what?
Uh...what a WIMP! Asking congress to take on this HORRIBLE burden, which is their job...but, he is such a weak President...and I disagree. I DISAGREE I tell ya. Whatever it is, I disagree STRONGLY cause, you know, I have these standards and all....

Sheesh! How completely unsurprising is THIS reaction from some of our posters. I do believe the price of credibility has dropped to about $0. I wonder how that trades on the open (voting) market! And people wonder why the republicans need to rig the elections!!Splat! Ah, I got this to work again.

Peggy, as you know there are many here who are less than enthused about having Barak Obama as president. I still support him so don't feel alone here.....but there are some issues that have arisen that even I am less than thrilled with. Examples being the IRS scandal - that to me is truly nasty - and also the spying scandal - though something Spartana posted awhile back I have been chewing over for awhile and I agree she has a point, that there is some reason(s) why collection of such data may be a good thing.

I still give him an 8 on a scale of one to ten. What he has done for gay rights is absolutely amazing. Perhaps many here won't understand this, but to have the President even mention that gay folk exist, much less being worthy of rights, in a speech telecast to all of America is absolutely breathtaking to this gay man. He has done a lot to bring gay issues to the table and kind of coax America into dealing with them. Solid gold on this one.

About the ACA - I know of several waiters who have been without coverage the past few years due to being unable to afford coverage on incomes of less than $17K a year, and restaurants not offering insurance these days. The fact that these folk will mostly - those who make under the magic number - qualify for expanded Medicaid makes me seriously think that perhaps we who understand what a miracle this is should set aside a corner of a room to make a shrine for him - YES WHEN YOU ARE POOR AND CAN'T SEE A WAY OUT IT IS THAT BIG OF A DEAL. There, I've said my bit for the downtrodden. Will I make a shrine? No. But I do feel morally obligated to continue to support Obama as THIS IS SUCH A BIG DEAL. And I get the feeling that many here are not going to get this. But it is that big a deal to many people I know.

And then I really appreciate his curbing the abusive practices of credit card companies, especially what used to be called universal default - if you were late with one payment, all your other cards could penalize you too. I to this day don't know how to forgive this.....it's beyond me.

So off to the scandals and now Syria....Obama gets criticized for wanting to strike Syria (which I am against, just for the record). Then he is criticized for taking the issue to Congress. Coming from my economically dicey background, how seriously can I take such? I feel for the man as he seems doomed here to lose/lose scenarios. And so I remember how his pushing the ACA through will make citizenship in this country a less fearful thing for many restaurant workers I know. I think of many folks I know who are in great amounts of debt and how they now have a little smidgen of rights against credit card companies. And being a gay man, I am absolutely flabbergasted at the pace of change of gay rights in the US. So I stick by him, remembering what it is like to grow up with health care being so hard to access and to realize you are gay and having much of society against you for something you did not choose.

To wind up, I believe if Romney had won instead of Obama, for me personally, it would have meant a re-introduction of fear of the citizenship. Trust me, I'm very grateful after 46 years to toss that aside. So Obama gets an 8.75 from me. Rob

[gimmethesimplelife]

Why, I, too would be content with France or Canada doing this job. ;) Kinda their turn, don't you think? Iris, if this absolutely is going to be done, I couldn't agree with you more. Rob

[gimmethesimplelife]

I just emailed my Senators (D & R) and Congresswoman (D), expressing my opinion that we NOT go into Syria.Good for you! And you know, this is something that I can be doing here in Arizona.....the email addresses I'm guessing are available online? Rob

[gimmethesimplelife]

Since I don't want this country involved in military action in Syria, I'm happy that the Prez is throwing this at Congress. Hope they continue to perform as they've been, butting heads and grandstanding and playing politics. In other words, am hoping they continue their ineffective leadership and no action results. No action in this case is a good thing.Isn't that crazy? But yet true. In this case for us that don't want a conflict with Syria, the "do nothing" Congress may actually work for us.....Talk about irony! Rob

[gimmethesimplelife]

A few months ago, a major federal highway bridge on I5 here in the state of Washington collapsed. Messing up transport in the region, and cutting off the main north-south route to our Canadian trading partners. A state of emergency was declared for the involved counties. They had to scrape the bottom of the barrel to find a few pennies to make temporary repairs.

With our rotting national infrastructure, somehow we think it's a good idea to fund our military with more money than basically the rest of the planet combined, and then send it out to waste billions of $$$ bombing and invading other countries to no result.

This conservative is sickened by it.


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e2/05-23-13_Skagit_Bridge_Collapse.jpg/800px-05-23-13_Skagit_Bridge_Collapse.jpgThis liberal couldn't agree with you more, Bae.....Rob

[Alan]

Isn't that crazy? But yet true. In this case for us that don't want a conflict with Syria, the "do nothing" Congress may actually work for us.....Talk about irony! Rob

I'm always amused by the "do nothing Congress" line. Does anyone really believe that the role of Congress is to automatically approve everything the Executive branch suggests?
It seems to me that when Congress limits executive power, it's actually doing quite a lot.

[ApatheticNoMore]

Good for you! And you know, this is something that I can be doing here in Arizona.....the email addresses I'm guessing are available online?

You can find your congressperson's contact information online, but email may not be fast enough! Nothing wrong with sending an email, it's better than nothing, but this is progressing amazingly rapidly, I've heard it may be voted on early this week. All I'm saying is calls may be better. And I can't tell you how unfortunate I find it that while the majority is overwhelmingly against this war, many are sending emails and so on that may will not even have time to make their congressperson aware of this. It's a really messed up situation.


I'm always amused by the "do nothing Congress" line. Does anyone really believe that the role of Congress is to automatically approve everything the Executive branch suggests? It seems to me that when Congress limits executive power, it's actually doing quite a lot.

Congress is probably going to vote for the war, so it's way too soon for celebration about them not doing so (and if so they'll yet again prove how much they deserve their single digit approval ratings). There's a small chance they won't though (hey if the UK can rebel ..).

[IshbelRobertson]

Most here appear glad that Mr Cameron's wishes did not prevail on the evidence as known so far. Tony BLiar's actions in fabricating info re Saddam Hussein's WMD and the fact that his party hounded to death a British scientist who would not support the lies, left a very little enthusiasm for another Arab adventure.

In what I think is an American saying, we UKers say 'we gave already'. So many dead, for nothing.

[Florence]

As I posted earlier, I have sent emails to the President, both Senators, and my Representative. It just so happens that this evening my Representative is having a Townhall meeting near me. DH and I will be there to express our opposition. I have a small sign but DH says I probably won't get to take it in. We will see. I think that a phone call to all is also a good idea. Will do that too.

[Yossarian]

She stated that if Obama were a waiter, and those condemning Obama were ordering, he would be told he totally screwed up the order regardless of what he brought to the table. THIS IS GOLD at least to me. What an interesting way to put this and so very accurate

No, it's more like the owner and the chef deciding they don't want to serve veal for ethical reasons, but the waiter dares the food critic to try the veal. And then the waiter comes back 15 minutes after promising the dish to the critic and his table and says, oh wait, I have to talk to the chef and see if we can prepare this dish. So now the owner and the chef have a choice between looking bad with the customers or violating their morals. The order itself isn't screwed up and the diners aren't unreasonable, it's the waiter who is screwing up the process by offering dishes without knowing if they can be cooked and delaying checking with the chef until after he has left the promises hanging out there a while.

[HappyHiker]

Here's one 'boots on the ground" observer and Nobel Prize winner just returned from Syria on why we should not take action in Syria..quite enlightening:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=msA35ATXol8&feature=youtu.be

[gimmethesimplelife]

Most here appear glad that Mr Cameron's wishes did not prevail on the evidence as known so far. Tony BLiar's actions in fabricating info re Saddam Hussein's WMD and the fact that his party hounded to death a British scientist who would not support the lies, left a very little enthusiasm for another Arab adventure.

In what I think is an American saying, we UKers say 'we gave already'. So many dead, for nothing.
I applaud Britian for not getting involved! Very wise on their part as Britian is dealing with cutbanks in spending/austerity measures.....how are they supposed to afford getting into a war? And I really applaud Cameron for knuckling under and giving in and not getting involved.....this to me shows an ability to divorce oneself from ego and comply with the wishes of both the public and the other government officials. Rob

[Tradd]

Good for you! And you know, this is something that I can be doing here in Arizona.....the email addresses I'm guessing are available online? Rob

I knew their names, so I just googled "Senator Mark Kirk email," for example and up it popped. It's actually not an actual email address. You're directed to a form on their website, just fill in the blanks. I sent the same message to all three, so I just copied and pasted.

As for those who say calling it better - yes, it is, but I don't have time during the day to call, so email it is for me.

[gimmethesimplelife]

No, it's more like the owner and the chef deciding they don't want to serve veal for ethical reasons, but the waiter dares the food critic to try the veal. And then the waiter comes back 15 minutes after promising the dish to the critic and his table and says, oh wait, I have to talk to the chef and see if we can prepare this dish. So now the owner and the chef have a choice between looking bad with the customers or violating their morals. The order itself isn't screwed up and the diners aren't unreasonable, it's the waiter who is screwing up the process by offering dishes without knowing if they can be cooked and delaying checking with the chef until after he has left the promises hanging out there a while. Though I don't agree with you, after thinking this over a bit I can see where the situation could look like this to some people, yes. I also have read that supposedly (?) Obama can make the call to strike Syria without the approval of Congress (?). I admit I am weak on the ins and outs of constitutional law, so those who wish to correct me, if anyone, have at it. Maybe I will learn something. I just don't understand how Obama can be blasted for calling strikes without Congressional approval, and when he turns around and seeks Congressional approval he is blasted yet again. I can't personally take the political process seriously if it is to be so lose/lose by armchair politicians, for lack of a better way of putting it. Rob

[bae]

It's pretty simple, Rob.

If the President wants to go to war, and wishes to go around Congress, that's the first point to raise a red flag. The merits of the proposed action aren't pertinent at that point, it's the process that is the problem.

If the President decides to go to war via the Constitutionally-required process, then we have reached *another* point where we can reasonably examine the action, and debate the merits.

So, there's nothing odd about it being "lose/lose". Just different steps along the road.

[ApatheticNoMore]

I also have read that supposedly (?) Obama can make the call to strike Syria without the approval of Congress (?). I admit I am weak on the ins and outs of constitutional law, so those who wish to correct me, if anyone, have at it. Maybe I will learn something.

I don't think he does, the power to declare war is with Congress. Obama did in Libya though.


I just don't understand how Obama can be blasted for calling strikes without Congressional approval, and when he turns around and seeks Congressional approval he is blasted yet again. I can't personally take the political process seriously if it is to be so lose/lose by armchair politicians, for lack of a better way of putting it.

Basically he didn't have the right Constitutionaly to call for strikes without Congressional approval. What would have been within his power to do is say propose a bill to Congress for something (let say something domestic just to avoid international law), find out it's very unpopular, and propose a modified bill that is more inline with what the electorate wants or junk the bill entirely. And then it could be said Obama is just responding to the electorate/ He proposed this bill, it was unpopular then he trashed it, be happy already. But the thing is proposing a war without Congressional approval was something he never had the Constitutional right to do, so even almost being ready to do something unconstitutional is unseemly. Mind you W Bush has said that he would have gone to war without congressional approval if need be, but he had the approval, and it was a non-issue, so we'll never know if that was true or not.

[Rogar]

Early indications are that the leaders of both Congressional parties are supporting a limited strike of some sort. It is a little discouraging that one of the few issues the lame congress can agree on is the use of military action. Although they have blown any element of surprise.

[ApatheticNoMore]

They'll have to change the bill then, it's much broader than that. I wouldn't be surprised if they do. Regardless, it's still pretty easy to get drawn into a wider war after that point.

[redfox]

John Cleese's perspective:

ALERTS TO THREATS IN 2013 EUROPE


From JOHN CLEESE


The English are feeling the pinch in relation to recent events in Syria and have therefore raised their security level from "Miffed" to "Peeved." Soon, though, security levels may be raised yet again to "Irritated" or even "A Bit Cross." The English have not been "A Bit Cross" since the blitz in 1940 when tea supplies nearly ran out. Terrorists have been re-categorized from "Tiresome" to "A Bloody Nuisance." The last time the British issued a "Bloody Nuisance" warning level was in 1588, when threatened by the Spanish Armada.




The Scots have raised their threat level from "Pissed Off" to "Let's get the Bastards." They don't have any other levels. This is the reason they have been used on the front line of the British army for the last 300 years.




The French government announced yesterday that it has raised its terror alert level from "Run" to "Hide." The only two higher levels in France are "Collaborate" and "Surrender." The rise was precipitated by a recent fire that destroyed France 's white flag factory, effectively paralyzing the country's military capability.




Italy has increased the alert level from "Shout Loudly and Excitedly" to "Elaborate Military Posturing." Two more levels remain: "Ineffective Combat Operations" and "Change Sides."




The Germans have increased their alert state from "Disdainful Arrogance" to "Dress in Uniform and Sing Marching Songs." They also have two higher levels: "Invade a Neighbour" and "Lose."




Belgians, on the other hand, are all on holiday as usual; the only threat they are worried about is NATO pulling out of Brussels ..




The Spanish are all excited to see their new submarines ready to deploy. These beautifully designed subs have glass bottoms so the new Spanish navy can get a really good look at the old Spanish navy.




Australia, meanwhile, has raised its security level from "No worries" to "She'll be right, Mate." Two more escalation levels remain: "Crikey! I think we'll need to cancel the barbie this weekend!" and "The barbie is cancelled." So far no situation has ever warranted use of the last final escalation level.




Regards,
John Cleese ,
British writer, actor and tall person




And as a final thought - Greece is collapsing, the Iranians are getting aggressive, and Rome is in disarray. Welcome back to 430 BC.


Life is too short...

[bae]

Early indications are that the leaders of both Congressional parties are supporting a limited strike of some sort.

Remember when Japan conducted limited airstrikes on Pearl Harbor over our oil embargo?

[Yossarian]

Does the administration have an explanation as to why an act of war on a sovereign nation is not a violation of international law? Or have we finally made it obvious that international law is a joke? I do appreciate the irony that Obama is the one driving the stake.

[Alan]

Does the administration have an explanation as to why an act of war on a sovereign nation is not a violation of international law?
I don't think the administration cares one bit about law, international or domestic.
In a democracy law is secondary to the desires of the majority, which is why we're a Republic. For the better part of the past 5 years, the President has had a slim majority backing his every dodgy move. I think he expects that deference to hold.

[Rogar]

I don't think the administration cares one bit about law, international or domestic.
In a democracy law is secondary to the desires of the majority, which is why we're a Republic. For the better part of the past 5 years, the President has had a slim majority backing his every dodgy move. I think he expects that deference to hold.

In most of the big issues in the past the "slim majority" was mostly Democratic. This seems to be bipartisan and time will tell if it is slim. In an alternate future where McCain was elected, he would probably be asking for something more aggressive. I think any Obama bashing falls short on this one. It is more a failure of the system and it's response to the desires of the people, who are decisively against a strike. My best guess is that Obama turned this over to Congress so that he would not take the blame for it being so unpopular.

[Yossarian]

In most of the big issues in the past the "slim majority" was mostly Democratic.

I wonder what the majority position is on attacking a sovereign state to support the Sunni Al-Queda opposition so as to goad Iran into attacking Israel and thus justifying an Israeli strike on Iran's nuclear program.

[Rogar]

Yossarian, I think I trust the politicians enough to think they are not that devious, but that is probably one of the many risks. Then again, the attack on Iraq certainly had an element of establishing a democracy in the middle-east as an objective.

[CathyA]

I wonder what the majority position is on attacking a sovereign state to support the Sunni Al-Queda opposition so as to goad Iran into attacking Israel and thus justifying an Israeli strike on Iran's nuclear program.

Oh what a tangled web we weave............
Seems like there's just no knowing what the truth is any more. :(

[peggy]

Disclaimer: the comment I'm about to make has nothing to do with what's been said on this thread, I haven't been following it close enough to comment on it specifically.

However, in my opinion, in the media, there was a heavy stream of criticism of the President trying to go around Congress on the issue of attacking Syria and when the President said he would be going to Congress on this issue the stream of criticism did not decrease or even take a breather, it merely shifted to other criticisms. Which I think is what Peggy was alluding to (and correct me if I was wrong).

I think there is a large contingent out there condemning Obama not based on his actions but because he is Obama. If he was a waiter, and these folks were ordering, he would be told he totally screwed up their order regardless of what he brought to the table.

Yes. This. I do believe those who profess confusion or ignorance are usually the ones guilty of the most hypocrisy.
Listening to some, it just takes my breath away at how fast they switch morals/ethics/sides, barely with a pause in between. "President Obama is such a terrible dictator for thinking he can go around congress, and such a whimp for consulting congress!"
It's truly stunning in it's display of arrogance and ignorance. And what's truly stunning are the people who switch with them, parroting what they say, washing back and forth like driftwood in the tide. Where is it going to land? I don't know. But it's fascinating to watch as the right craft all the ways to criticize Obama no matter what he does.
These people have no credibility. None. Don't bother looking to them for guidance cause it isn't there. Everything they do, or say, or think...Every. Single. Thing. is only for one purpose. Embarrass Obama, and make him look as bad as can be. Period. that's it. It's still job #1. I do believe that even the ones who want to go to war will vote no now that Obama has stated he won't necessarily abide by their vote. Oh goodie! A way to go to war and still make it 'Obama's war' . A twofer! If we do bomb, how fast do you think it will be before it is labeled 'Obama's Iraq'? Obama blew it on that one.

Except maybe McCain. He wants to go to war, and really doesn't care who he has to sleep with to do it. Still, he is/will put on a good show of 'thoughtful' questions, and of course criticisms, of Obama. Gotta have that. But if someone sneezes, McCain wants to invade. That's just his thing. So, no real thoughtful guidance there.

Personally, I don't want us to take any action, except maybe to double up on humanitarian resources for the refugees. Food, tents, blankets, that sort of thing. Perhaps offer some assistance to the receiving countries.
I don't want to bomb. Even limited bombing. I feel so sorry for those people. I really do. And I do understand why he wants to bomb. (ignore the military wanting to bomb. No credibility there either as this is their thing, and their mind set. Military action is the only solution for them) I understand his reasons. But, enough! This can only end up badly. Yes, I know there are cases where a limited strike was effective, and maybe that's what Obama has in mind, but it seems that more often that not, these things don't end well. And it's just too easy to be sucked into something more. What if we strike, and he uses chemical agents again? Another strike?
I hate to say it, but it's just not our business. It's not our job to police the world. I know it kind of is, but it's time we resign.

I guess the only question left is, how many people can we stand to watch die at the hand of a brutal dictator? What IS the threshold of evil? Spraying gas over a village, or herding folks into a building and gassing them? I'm not trying to be snarky. I just wonder. I can't answer this for myself, and I was wondering if anyone else can answer this.

And this goes back to my original statement, which some would 'not understand'. We can not look to a majority of congress for guidance, because they have been so very transparent in their selfish, bigoted, myopic agenda. And these are the very people we should be able to turn to for information and guidance, as they know all the facts. (and yes, even arrogant people need to understand they don't have all the information that leaders of congress and the President have...nor should they)
So, pick your leader. Fox news...Limbaugh...Obama...or the guy who has 29% of Louisiana republicans convinced that Obama is responsible for the slow response to Katrina (WTF!) Can we trust any of them.

* Rob, I think you have been out of the loop for awhile.;) The IRS scandal wasn't a scandal after all. No connection to Obama, or the White House, or democrats in any way shape or form. None. At all. Not even a whiff. The only real scandal was the way 'investigator' Issa obstructed, lied, and mislead. Again, it's that 'ol job #1 agenda. Please spend a bit of time at the library doing some research. I think you will be surprised at what you find, and why that whole 'scandal' just suddenly dissipated.

[ApatheticNoMore]

I wonder what the majority position is on attacking a sovereign state to support the Sunni Al-Queda opposition so as to goad Iran into attacking Israel and thus justifying an Israeli strike on Iran's nuclear program.

Well I don't grant much truth to pure speculation (or links with evidence that show it's more than speculation, leaks of something like diplomatic cables could show something like that - it's the type of thing such leaks teach us). That Al-Queda is part of "the rebels" is well known. This could erupt into a larger war, I do think that's a danger here. There seems to be some talk of using this to teach Iran a lesson.

The majority of the people are against the war (and it's a large majority), so all railing against the horrible majority for supporting wars is kinda pointless right now. Sure, I worry we're going to get major propaganda to try to change that and I worry we're going to get war regardless but ...

[Yossarian]

I think I trust the politicians enough to think they are not that devious

Rogar, it's not a matter of being "devious", it's the way foreign policy works. No way they approve putting U.S. lives at risk and potentially setting off a regional conflagration unless there is more at stake. To think otherwise is simply naive. They have decided Iran is a bigger threat than an extremist Sunni Syria.

[bae]

"We have not given the prize for what may happen in the future. We are awarding Obama for what he has done in the past year. And we are hoping this may contribute a little bit for what he is trying to do," Thorbjørn Jagland, Chairman of the Norwegian Nobel Committee

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c3/Jagland_and_Obama.jpg/800px-Jagland_and_Obama.jpg

[ApatheticNoMore]

I guess the only question left is, how many people can we stand to watch die at the hand of a brutal dictator?

Well there is still no proof he did it. I don't think anything has changed since I first said there's no proof. Except the prosecution has repeated again and again that the accused did it (Big Lie style), but they haven't submitted any additional evidence. The evidence wasn't sufficient to convince the UK!


What IS the threshold of evil? Spraying gas over a village, or herding folks into a building and gassing them? I'm not trying to be snarky. I just wonder. I can't answer this for myself, and I was wondering if anyone else can answer this.

If I must answer all 3:
1) proof he did it
2) NO other possible means to solve the conflict except war - ie trying Assad in international court. Trying again for real DIPLOMACY, a peace settlement between Assad and the rebels, yea sure Assad will still be an evil person and some of the rebels would be too, but it would stop or at least reduce the carnage of civil war.
3) almost everything is going to fail this: worth the possible consequences of what I see this potentially leading too, which is full scale war in Syria with boots on the ground, plus the potential for the conflict to spread beyond Syria. With all the consequences of war: poisoning the country with depleted uranium and deformed babies, taking out critical infrastructure that people need to live (like hospitals etc.), killing civilians indiscrimantly with *our* bombs, introducing torture prisons like Gitmo and renditioning innocent people to them for years at a time, leaving the country completely ungovernable when we're done with it (bombings are still a regular occurance in Iraq) etc.. In raw number of deaths the gassing doesn't compare, if one is going to be crude about it. Plus you can add in the bad consequences this will have for this country.

But I dont' particularly like engaging such philosophy 101 arguments at all - such as: under what theoretical conditions should someone engage? They are mostly based on a lot of false assumptions. They don't want to talk facts or history. Like for instance: WHY should I believe that the U.S. government ever engages in the middle east for humanitarian reasons at all, rather than entirely being motivated for other reasons?


And this goes back to my original statement, which some would 'not understand'. We can not look to a majority of congress for guidance, because they have been so very transparent in their selfish, bigoted, myopic agenda. And these are the very people we should be able to turn to for information and guidance, as they know all the facts. (and yes, even arrogant people need to understand they don't have all the information that leaders of congress and the President have...nor should they)

Yes and so? The highest levels of government may know things I don't. That's plenty believable. Why should I believe they will use it for good as it were? For all I know, maybe they actualy have proof the rebels did it and are hiding that because they need a pretext for war. That's pure hypothetical speculation, I don't know that, I don't know what I don't know. I just don't assume whatever information they have that I don't know is being used ethically is all. So we need to do analysis based on all we do know, and not make any assumptions whatsoever based on "intellegence" we simply don't have, least of all the assumption that the powers that be will use it ethically.

[HappyHiker]

Sorry to be "Debbie Downer," but with this proposed aggression toward Syria and the new environmentally dire developments at Fukushima with no solutions in sight), I'm beginning to wonder if we're slouching toward the end times the Mayans predicted.

I'm very disappointed in President Obama. And very sad right now.

[CathyA]

I think he just couldn't bear the pics of all the dead children. I think that's what getting to everyone.
I just don't know what to do. Its true that there has been alot of slaughter of innocents all over the world, and we didn't respond.
So I'm not sure what's going into all this. I doubt the congress people are doing what their constituents would want.
If we didn't act........would this be sort of like watching Hitler and not doing anything about it?

[bae]

I think he just couldn't bear the pics of all the dead children. I think that's what getting to everyone.
I just don't know what to do.

There are hundreds of thousands of dead children all over the world each year, killed by hunger, disease, violence, and whatnot, living in countries ruled by Unpleasant People who care not for their citizens.

I feel bad for the kids killed in Syria. I feel just as bad for the kids killed in other places. We can perhaps help those kids without going to war...

Selecting out these particular Syrian kids and waving the bloody shirt to stampede us to war seems all too precious.

[try2bfrugal]

I feel bad for the kids killed in Syria. I feel just as bad for the kids killed in other places. We can perhaps help those kids without going to war...

+1. That is the logical viewpoint. But it doesn't provide profits to the military industrial complex. They seem to be looking for more product buyers. Apparently, militarization of the U.S. police force isn't enough for them (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tag/police-militarization).

Eisenhower saw this coming -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8y06NSBBRtY

[bae]

+1. That is the logical viewpoint. But it doesn't provide profits to the military industrial complex. They seem to be looking for more product buyers.

How many kids do you suppose we could save each year if we took half the US "defense" budget, and repurposed it to building hospitals, schools, water systems, sewage systems, roads, and those sorts of things?

[CathyA]

I was in no way saying I agreed with military action.....just to clarify.

[nswef]

How many kids do you suppose we could save each year if we took half the US "defense" budget, and repurposed it to building hospitals, schools, water systems, sewage systems, roads, and those sorts of things?

I agree with you bae. How much better this world would be if all the brains and money were focused on improving the lives of children. (I couldn't figure out how to make the quote work. )

[gimmethesimplelife]

It's pretty simple, Rob.

If the President wants to go to war, and wishes to go around Congress, that's the first point to raise a red flag. The merits of the proposed action aren't pertinent at that point, it's the process that is the problem.

If the President decides to go to war via the Constitutionally-required process, then we have reached *another* point where we can reasonably examine the action, and debate the merits.

So, there's nothing odd about it being "lose/lose". Just different steps along the road.Bae, I meant the situation was lose/lose for Obama personally. First he gets blasted for wanting to strike Syria and going around Congress, then he gets blasted for going to Congress. Lose/lose for the man. On some days I truly feel sorry for him, as he is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. Rob

[gimmethesimplelife]

Yes. This. I do believe those who profess confusion or ignorance are usually the ones guilty of the most hypocrisy.
Listening to some, it just takes my breath away at how fast they switch morals/ethics/sides, barely with a pause in between. "President Obama is such a terrible dictator for thinking he can go around congress, and such a whimp for consulting congress!"
It's truly stunning in it's display of arrogance and ignorance. And what's truly stunning are the people who switch with them, parroting what they say, washing back and forth like driftwood in the tide. Where is it going to land? I don't know. But it's fascinating to watch as the right craft all the ways to criticize Obama no matter what he does.
These people have no credibility. None. Don't bother looking to them for guidance cause it isn't there. Everything they do, or say, or think...Every. Single. Thing. is only for one purpose. Embarrass Obama, and make him look as bad as can be. Period. that's it. It's still job #1. I do believe that even the ones who want to go to war will vote no now that Obama has stated he won't necessarily abide by their vote. Oh goodie! A way to go to war and still make it 'Obama's war' . A twofer! If we do bomb, how fast do you think it will be before it is labeled 'Obama's Iraq'? Obama blew it on that one.

Except maybe McCain. He wants to go to war, and really doesn't care who he has to sleep with to do it. Still, he is/will put on a good show of 'thoughtful' questions, and of course criticisms, of Obama. Gotta have that. But if someone sneezes, McCain wants to invade. That's just his thing. So, no real thoughtful guidance there.

Personally, I don't want us to take any action, except maybe to double up on humanitarian resources for the refugees. Food, tents, blankets, that sort of thing. Perhaps offer some assistance to the receiving countries.
I don't want to bomb. Even limited bombing. I feel so sorry for those people. I really do. And I do understand why he wants to bomb. (ignore the military wanting to bomb. No credibility there either as this is their thing, and their mind set. Military action is the only solution for them) I understand his reasons. But, enough! This can only end up badly. Yes, I know there are cases where a limited strike was effective, and maybe that's what Obama has in mind, but it seems that more often that not, these things don't end well. And it's just too easy to be sucked into something more. What if we strike, and he uses chemical agents again? Another strike?
I hate to say it, but it's just not our business. It's not our job to police the world. I know it kind of is, but it's time we resign.

I guess the only question left is, how many people can we stand to watch die at the hand of a brutal dictator? What IS the threshold of evil? Spraying gas over a village, or herding folks into a building and gassing them? I'm not trying to be snarky. I just wonder. I can't answer this for myself, and I was wondering if anyone else can answer this.

And this goes back to my original statement, which some would 'not understand'. We can not look to a majority of congress for guidance, because they have been so very transparent in their selfish, bigoted, myopic agenda. And these are the very people we should be able to turn to for information and guidance, as they know all the facts. (and yes, even arrogant people need to understand they don't have all the information that leaders of congress and the President have...nor should they)
So, pick your leader. Fox news...Limbaugh...Obama...or the guy who has 29% of Louisiana republicans convinced that Obama is responsible for the slow response to Katrina (WTF!) Can we trust any of them.

* Rob, I think you have been out of the loop for awhile.;) The IRS scandal wasn't a scandal after all. No connection to Obama, or the White House, or democrats in any way shape or form. None. At all. Not even a whiff. The only real scandal was the way 'investigator' Issa obstructed, lied, and mislead. Again, it's that 'ol job #1 agenda. Please spend a bit of time at the library doing some research. I think you will be surprised at what you find, and why that whole 'scandal' just suddenly dissipated.Peggy, I agree with you. There are people in the government whose main job it is is to embarrass Obama and make him look bad. It must be galling for them, absolutely galling, that Obama was reelected and that people like me will qualify for either expanded Medicaid or heavily subsidized insurance coverage effective January 1st next year. It must be galling for them that Obama has been able to get through parts of his agenda regardless of such people. Like with the ACA - it has been stunning to me that it survived the Supreme Court, and then survived due to Obama's reelection, and then a side note, expanded Medicaid survived in Arizona even though we have a Republican governor. And this Republican governor took on her own party and stood up to them and got expanded Medicaid through for all the federal dollars that would flow into the state.

My point here is that even though people have tried to block him every step of the way, he does manage to get some things through. I'm bumping him to a 9 out of 10 for this. And you are not alone in your support of Obama here, Peggy.

And one last thing - you are right. I have been out of the loop for awhile as I have turned off the TV other than for rare PBS viewing. I will check into what you said about the IRS issues having nothing to do with Obama. Rob

[Yossarian]

First he gets blasted for wanting to strike Syria and going around Congress, then he gets blasted for going to Congress. Lose/lose for the man. On some days I truly feel sorry for him, as he is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. Rob

Breaching a Constitutional duty is bad. Bombing a foreign country that presents no threat to the US is, at least to some, bad. Fixing the breach of duty doesn't somehow make the bombing a good idea.

[gimmethesimplelife]

Breaching a Constitutional duty is bad. Bombing a foreign country that presents no threat to the US is, at least to some, bad. Fixing the breach of duty doesn't somehow make the bombing a good idea.I'm not against what you have posted here, Yossarian, but the fact still does remain, damned if he does, and damned if he doesn't. I'm starting to feel more respect for Obama now that I realize this. Rob

[bae]

I'm not against what you have posted here, Yossarian, but the fact still does remain, damned if he does, and damned if he doesn't. I'm starting to feel more respect for Obama now that I realize this. Rob

The fact is, there are more than two choices on the table, so it isn't as simple as "damned if he does, and damned if he doesn't".

There are many non-damning paths available, or, there were...

[gimmethesimplelife]

Oh how quickly we try to forget -
Lies the Bush administration told us about Iraq:
1) Iraq had something to do with 9/11 and/or Al Qaeda.
2) Iraq illegally possessed chemical and biological weapons which were a threat to the U.S. and/or its allies.
3) Iraq was fast pursuing and might even already possess the means to build and deliver a nuclear bomb.
4) Occupying Iraq would be a "cakewalk" but we would also find in the aftermath a nation full of people who would welcome us and cooperate fully in the rebuilding of their country.
5) Iraq was a nation which, with U.S. aid and guidance, could within a short time become a democratic model for the rest of the region.

that said, I agree with redfox, it's a sad and sickening situation at this point.+1000

[Yossarian]

+1000

I am confused by your agreement. :0!


1) Iraq had something to do with 9/11 and/or Al Qaeda.

Does Syria have anything to do with 9/11 or Al Qaeda? I'd say no to 9/11 and yes to Al Qaeda, but by bombing we'd be helping the Al Qaeda affiliate in Syria with our attack. How does that make it a better idea to attack Syria than Iraq?


2) Iraq illegally possessed chemical and biological weapons which were a threat to the U.S. and/or its allies.

What threat do Syria's weapons present to the United States?


3) Iraq was fast pursuing and might even already possess the means to build and deliver a nuclear bomb.

Does Syria have such means? If not, how does that make it a better idea to attack Syria than Iraq?


4) Occupying Iraq would be a "cakewalk" but we would also find in the aftermath a nation full of people who would welcome us and cooperate fully in the rebuilding of their country.

Do you think Syrians want their country bombed? Just wait until Al Jezeera telecasts the photos of dead kids from the bombs that we dropped to save the children.


5) Iraq was a nation which, with U.S. aid and guidance, could within a short time become a democratic model for the rest of the region.

Which of the political options in Syria do you think would prevail if Assad falls and what are the chances for a democracy peacefully emerging.



I've heard some arguments for why a strike makes sense, but your +1000 was actually to a post that brilliantly exposes why Obama is making a big mistake. So which is it?

[try2bfrugal]

How many kids do you suppose we could save each year if we took half the US "defense" budget, and repurposed it to building hospitals, schools, water systems, sewage systems, roads, and those sorts of things?

The U.S. has 5% of the world's population and yet makes up for close to 40% of the top 15 militarized countries' "defense" spending (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures).

If we cut that number in half to 20% of the "defense" spending for 5% of the world population, it would free up $341 billion dollars annually for causes like helping the homeless, feeding the poor, providing universal health care and rehabilitation programs for offenders, instead of the current model of mass incarceration (https://www.aclu.org/blog/criminal-law-reform/how-really-end-mass-incarceration).

[creaker]

I think where many get stuck is the notion that there must be a best choice or right choice that would necessarily be a good choice. The only choices may be between absolutely horrid and stuff that's much, much worse - or we might even not have that option of absolutely horrid.

It's a lot easier blaming others for bad choices when there were only bad choices to choose from in the first place. All you have to do is sit tight and make sure you weren't the one choosing.

[RosieTR]

In a slightly different vein, what do you think it means that we now have Obama, McCain, Boehner and Kerry all on board with the strike idea? I have trouble wrapping my head around this, as up to this point those four couldn't all agree on which way out of a paper bag. So the cynical me thinks there's glory/power/money involved, while the idealistic me has no idea. I really can't believe a few dead kid pics is the major motivator, not when the same folks couldn't do a darn thing in response to Sandy Hook. Never mind the 1000s of starving kids around the world daily.
If cynical me is right, what next? It's not a "limited strike", it's Syria then Iran or something. I hope I'm wrong.

[gimmethesimplelife]

I am confused by your agreement. :0!


1) Iraq had something to do with 9/11 and/or Al Qaeda.

Does Syria have anything to do with 9/11 or Al Qaeda? I'd say no to 9/11 and yes to Al Qaeda, but by bombing we'd be helping the Al Qaeda affiliate in Syria with our attack. How does that make it a better idea to attack Syria than Iraq?


2) Iraq illegally possessed chemical and biological weapons which were a threat to the U.S. and/or its allies.

What threat do Syria's weapons present to the United States?


3) Iraq was fast pursuing and might even already possess the means to build and deliver a nuclear bomb.

Does Syria have such means? If not, how does that make it a better idea to attack Syria than Iraq?


4) Occupying Iraq would be a "cakewalk" but we would also find in the aftermath a nation full of people who would welcome us and cooperate fully in the rebuilding of their country.

Do you think Syrians want their country bombed? Just wait until Al Jezeera telecasts the photos of dead kids from the bombs that we dropped to save the children.


5) Iraq was a nation which, with U.S. aid and guidance, could within a short time become a democratic model for the rest of the region.

Which of the political options in Syria do you think would prevail if Assad falls and what are the chances for a democracy peacefully emerging.



I've heard some arguments for why a strike makes sense, but your +1000 was actually to a post that brilliantly exposes why Obama is making a big mistake. So which is it?My point was there are so many that seek to crucify Obama, who seemingly live and delight in making him look as bad as possible - and here is a list of some of the issues of George Bush with the war in Iraq. Lainey is so right, how soon some of us forget.....This was not meant as a comparison between Iraq and Syria but as an agreement that Bush was no saint and that there were issues in his administration with his wars, too. Rob

[Yossarian]

Bush was no saint and that there were issues in his administration with his wars, too. Rob

I think we owe our troops and the Syrians a better reason to kill people than "Bush ****ed up so Obama gets to kill people too."

[ApatheticNoMore]

Perhaps the problem for those who want war is people *don't* forget (at least not that quickly), so it's quite a marketing problem they've got (even "new and improved war" doesn't seem to be selling).

[Zoebird]

How many kids do you suppose we could save each year if we took half the US "defense" budget, and repurposed it to building hospitals, schools, water systems, sewage systems, roads, and those sorts of things?

I completely agree with this.

In all honesty, I've argued this point so many times before to so many people, and I'm really tired of being called "entitled" and "ultra liberal" for doing so. LOL (not anyone on this board, mind you)

I'm really loving what Boulder did with their power (http://www.upworthy.com/a-bunch-of-young-geniuses-just-made-a-corrupt-corporation-freak-out-big-time-time-for-round). Forgive the over-blown title, the concept is interesting. A municipality decided to create a sustainable power grid for their town, basically moving away from the corporate power provider model. This is a great demonstration of libertarian ideology, to be honest (well, social libertarian -- localized government, power "owned" by the people and managed through their tax dollars). I look forward to seeing more of this behavior. I think that it's a great idea to get yourself off grid if you can -- you own your own home, etc. But the idea of a city/town deciding that they'll go "off grid" is pretty awesome.

[iris lilies]

My point was there are so many that seek to crucify Obama, who seemingly live and delight in making him look as bad as possible - and here is a list of some of the issues of George Bush with the war in Iraq. Lainey is so right, how soon some of us forget.....

And here we have an example of celebrity politics at its finest. Rob is quite certain that President Obama is good regardless of his deeds.

I am on record with this group of being highly distrustful and mostly opposed to the Iraq invasion and I am opposed to this one as well. I'm consistent. And I also dislike the way President Obama acted over the past ten days. He's been an arrogant weenie. But it's two separate ideas. 1) Syria War=bad idea 2) Obama=eejit with his red line and blusterbutt postering.

You make such a big deal about gay rights yet this dickhead President didn't support gay marriage until, what, a little over a year ago. You speak about President Obama him making a transformational speech about LBGT people, but Dick freakin' Cheney supported gay marriage before Obama! Unbelievable.

But carry on, worship him if you like. He's not even golden tongued like Slick Willy and he's not nearly the gifted politician that Willy was.

[try2bfrugal]

I'm really loving what Boulder did with their power (http://www.upworthy.com/a-bunch-of-young-geniuses-just-made-a-corrupt-corporation-freak-out-big-time-time-for-round). Forgive the over-blown title, the concept is interesting. A municipality decided to create a sustainable power grid for their town, basically moving away from the corporate power provider model. This is a great demonstration of libertarian ideology, to be honest (well, social libertarian -- localized government, power "owned" by the people and managed through their tax dollars). I look forward to seeing more of this behavior. I think that it's a great idea to get yourself off grid if you can -- you own your own home, etc. But the idea of a city/town deciding that they'll go "off grid" is pretty awesome.

It would be great to see more tax dollars go to sustainable living projects like this and less into killing people in foreign countries.

[gimmethesimplelife]

And here we have an example of celebrity politics at its finest. Rob is quite certain that President Obama is good regardless of his deeds.

I am on record with this group of being highly distrustful and mostly opposed to the Iraq invasion and I am opposed to this one as well. I'm consistent. And I also dislike the way President Obama acted over the past ten days. He's been an arrogant weenie. But it's two separate ideas. 1) Syria War=bad idea 2) Obama=eejit with his red line and blusterbutt postering.

You make such a big deal about gay rights yet this dickhead President didn't support gay marriage until, what, a little over a year ago. You speak about President Obama him making a transformational speech about LBGT people, but Dick freakin' Cheney supported gay marriage before Obama! Unbelievable.

But carry on, worship him if you like. He's not even golden tongued like Slick Willy and he's not nearly the gifted politician that Willy was.Iris, ouch!!!! I gotta say that above all else, I don't agree with us going into Syria. I am not thrilled that Obama is leading us towards that. Really and truly I don't want us there regardless of who is at the helm, even Obama. But at the moment it appears as if I am not going to get my wish.
Iris....I obviously don't agree with much of what you have said but I don't want to escalate things either. So I will just say, walk a mile in my shoes and you might be able to understand - and vice versa may very well be true, too. I am looking at this way way way way way beyond celebrity politics and liking Obama.

Growing up gay and poor in the US - at least in 80's when I did (I do believe things are a lot different now) I learned a lot - and not much of it had to do with fitting into or liking this system. Living in fear of getting sick....the dark side of me wishes that all middle class people could be stripped of their health insurance and find themselves learning a lot about America via this lack. I think then things could be much more positive as a result - changes would get made and if they didn't, people would learn about the America I know. Coming from this other country (it has always surprised me you don't need a passport going back and forth between these different realities) and having a President throw you some bones as a gay individual is a big deal. And that's great that Cheney was supportive! I'm not going to take from that. But supportive AND reducing the fear of American citizenship through making health care available???? Do you not understand how big a deal that is????????

One thing I am very grateful for. When I was twelve, my mom sat me down and had the citizenship talk with me.....I am very lucky for that and I think one BIG problem in the US is that very few kids get this guidance growing up. To wit - Citizenship all boils down to a few things. What is the tax rate, what's in it for you (social welfare benefits) and how much debt is owed per capita? Very very very wise words.....Perhaps you can see coming from this mindset, and expanision of gay rights and an expansion of health care availability is going to work? I would add something to my mother's advice though - what is owed per capita in funded and unfunded liabilities?

So perhaps you can see I'm looking at many issues through a different lens than the majority are. Would I want to look at things the way most do? Not on your life!!!!!!!!!

So, after all that.....the takeaways....I don't want us in Syria. and I don't really care who's at the helm, I'm looking at things through the three citizenship questions listed above. Rob PS I've come back to edit this slightly - I do care a bit who's at the helm, I'd rather have a Democrat on average than a Republican, though call me liberal - I can think of one Republican I wouldn't mind in the Presidential role - John Kasich of Ohio.

PPS Please don't call Obama a dickhead here......I have not used those kinds of words for the other side of the aisle, even though they often upset me to put it mildly. Fair enough? You do get to dislike/distrust/not care for him all you want - you have that right, certainly.

[gimmethesimplelife]

I think we owe our troops and the Syrians a better reason to kill people than "Bush ****ed up so Obama gets to kill people too."This I agree with. The whole point was that Bush made some major errors of judgment too, and seemed to get more of a free pass than Obama is these days. Rob

[CathyA]

This I agree with. The whole point was that Bush made some major errors of judgment too, and seemed to get more of a free pass than Obama is these days. Rob

This is very true.

[gimmethesimplelife]

This is very true.Thank you, Cathy. Rob

[Yossarian]

I don't know what you people are smoking. No one criticizes Bush? LMFAO. You also don't know your SLN history (or from my POV your literary references) very well.

[gimmethesimplelife]

It would be great to see more tax dollars go to sustainable living projects like this and less into killing people in foreign countries.+1

[gimmethesimplelife]

I don't know what you people are smoking. No one criticizes Bush? LMFAO. You also don't know your SLN history (or from my POV your literary references) very well.I'm sorry I'm not following you....as to my SLN history I consider myself fairly liberal though when I see Dems doing things I don't like I'm not afraid to call them on it, and when I see Reps doing something like I believe in (an example would be my recent praise of Jan Brewer of Arizona for going against her party on expanding Medicaid in AZ) I do give credit where credit is due. I am not unwilling to do this. To me it doesn't really matter who helps those on the lower end of the totem pole in the US - what matters is that it gets done.

Indeed there were those critical of Bush - certainly not everyone approved of him. I will give you that. His presidency was no rose garden. My belief is that Obama gets raked over the coals worse than Bush was.....and I will admit I resent this as coming from the lower social classes, I have seen Obama doing some actual good for average people and for those under "average" - I did not see this during the Bush presidency unless one was wealthy or on Medicare - he did expand prescription drug benefits, I will give him credit for that much.

As to literary references. ? I don't understand what you meant by this. I will admit though that I have been watching less TV and reading fewer papers - so much of politics to me boils down to the three citizenship questions I covered in my long post to Iris L.

What I find most interesting about these political discussions though? You can take ten people and put them in the same situation and get ten different takes on the situation. I believe my takes have remained for the most part consistent, Yossarian. Yours have too, I will give you that.

Rob

[gimmethesimplelife]

I have been up late tonight working on amazon.com affiliate site I am putting together for seasonal workers and I have also been reading over these posts about the possible upcoming conflict in Syria. Why I stick by Obama is what I am focusing on....when even I have mentioned that I don't care for his seeming to move us closer towards a conflict with Syria. I look at what this country has become, how the odds are so stacked against not just the poor that I go on about, but now the middle class too - I will say one thing - the America I go on about and know is sifting upwards now. Obama is the first president I have really run across that has thrown bones out to the struggling - in fact, even uttered class warfare rhetoric in his speeches. Coming from my background and having learned basic distrust of America by the time I was ten, I find it impossible not to respect anyone who even has the ability to mention that maybe things aren't that great for many people. Honestly, how many presidents before this one have uttered that much about social class and money getting sifted upwards and opportunity leaving so many? Perhaps Clinton (?) here and there touched on it, but there was no real call to in the Clintons years as if you were willing to work those days, you could find something. Maybe not what you wanted to do right away but something to bridge you until you found something better. That America doesn't exist for many anymore. My point? At least Obama is willing to some degree acknowledge this - I am completely unable to support any politician who only paints bright pictures in a world like this.

So I'll stick by Obama, even though right now he seems to be leading the US to somewhere I don't care to go. (Syria). To not support him would be to turn my back on so much of what life has thought me - I won't do this. Rob

[CathyA]

Yossarian..........I can tell you that, from my experience, I never heard anyone condemning George W. around my neck of the woods and the country, like they have Obama........even when he was making horrible decisions. (He was "The Decider", you know).
True, on this SL forum we heard alot of it..........but not much "out there" in the rest of the country. Maybe the people who tend to scream the loudest when they are unhappy are of the Republican variety? :~)

[iris lilies]

I don't know what you people are smoking. No one criticizes Bush? LMFAO. You also don't know your SLN history (or from my POV your literary references) very well.

I know, unbelievable, eh? Back in the Bush years Peggy was here 3X daily spewing Bush hatred along with a whole slew of people, and moderators insured that it continued by yanking posting privileges for those on the wrong side.

It's important to remember this one thing. In the famous words of PDQ (a favorite SLN poster of mine who was banned for citing an incident in history during one of the Bush bashing events here)

George Bush isn't the President now. Try to get over it.

[gimmethesimplelife]

Yossarian..........I can tell you that, from my experience, I never heard anyone condemning George W. around my neck of the woods and the country, like they have Obama........even when he was making horrible decisions. (He was "The Decider", you know).
True, on this SL forum we heard alot of it..........but not much "out there" in the rest of the country. Maybe the people who tend to scream the loudest when they are unhappy are of the Republican variety? :~)Cathy I think you have hit on something I have missed in my postings. Here on this board - I have been here since August 2005 now, (has it really been eight years already?) - there were are great deal of Anti-Bush postings. Iris is right, I was here and I can vouch for that. But as far as in real life beyond these boards - Bush had more of a free pass than Obama has. The level of hatred I have run across in Phoenix towards Obama is nothing like the hatred I ran across with Bush. I don't know why this is - Obama seems to represent a form of government that works for me personally (overall, I still don't care for the moves toward conflict in Syria) that really seems to alienate other people, and they seem quite willing to express this.....Funny thing with me, when I see hatred towards Obama, it makes me like him more. Rob

[gimmethesimplelife]

I know, unbelievable, eh? Back in the Bush years Peggy was here 3X daily spewing Bush hatred along with a whole slew of people, and moderators insured that it continued by yanking posting privileges for those on the wrong side.

It's important to remember this one thing. In the famous words of PDQ (a favorite SLN poster of mine who was banned for citing an incident in history during one of the Bush bashing events here)

George Bush isn't the President now. Try to get over it.
Iris lol interesting enough, your large sized ending to your post? I have used that same line before to those who don't like Obama. This line multitasks and can be used by both sides. Rob

[iris lilies]

Iris lol interesting enough, your large sized ending to your post? I have used that same line before to those who don't like Obama. This line multitasks and can be used by both sides. Rob

Haha, well, that's funny and true.

As for President worship, in my blue city, and given that I know and socialize with a LOT of blue voters, I can assure you that the Prez has supporters around here.

[ApatheticNoMore]

But as far as in real life beyond these boards - Bush had more of a free pass than Obama has.

NO HE DID NOT. I really think the reverse.


The level of hatred I have run across in Phoenix towards Obama is nothing like the hatred I ran across with Bush.

My experience around here BEGS to differ. But really if you are going to live in the reddest of red states and complain about people being Republican it's kinda like going around with a "kick me" sign on your back. I don't have a problem with people choosing to live in Arizona, I don't have a problem with Democrats choosing to live in Arizona. Maybe it has lower taxes and less debt per person? I actually think people live places for real complex reasons and swear no oath of loyalty whatsoever to their state or federal government by doing so - though yea they legally have to pay taxes (and California state politics mostly doesn't make me too angry). But it's not some special standard for Bush versus Obama, it's just partisanship. Dems will give more of a pass to Obama and Reps more a pass toward Bush. You may dislike it, heck one may even be fairly above it all, but it's not all that interesting, it's just partisanship.

I don't think Obama deserves anyone's loyalty. One can be grateful for a program that helps them without standing by or liking Obama. One can vote for Obama without either of those as well. The powers that be also create a system so harsh that people have to beg and be grateful for crumbs (eg by outsourcing jobs etc.).

I hang out with fairly blue too. I regard Obama as basically a bad man (and will more so if he begins the wholesale slaughter of Syrians!). So it really saddens me a lot that people give Obama more of a pass. But at a certain point if you are going to work politics even just real locally (say trying to get a local green smartgrid), you might find yourself allied with the political organizations that exist - which are Dem or Rep - strategically. Intellectually I may still have no use for them :)

[Yossarian]

I'm sorry I'm not following you

I'm not sure who you consider the "conservative" posters here but by my tally everyone potentially in that category was consistent in their positions in 2003 and now. It's not a partisan Bush vs Obama, it's a principled don't bomb people position. I think to portray it as a partisan issue is unworthy of the people who contribute here and the people on the ground in Syria who will be on the receiving end of your political payback. PS- Yossarian is the protagonist in an anti-war novel.

[bae]

I live in just about the most liberal, Democrat-voting county in a blue state. ~70% voted for Obama's re-election.

While Bush was President, we had groups demonstrating on the village green and marching down the main street protesting for peace, several times a week, almost every day at the peak of their efforts.

The *day* Obama won the first time, the protests stopped. They have never resumed.

Around here, if you presume to criticize the administration's decisions, you are dismissed as a racist, a Tea Party madman, or some sort of corporate fascist tool. When I dared to participate in the 2012 election cycle as a Republican delegate from our county to the conventions, a good number of people I know here stopped socializing with my family and were visibily rude in public, though I went as a libertarian advocate...

I suspect if Obama were to drop nukes on Syria tomorrow, the local progressive community would come up with some "well, it's good for the Earth and the children, and he means well..." line, while gushing about how we should give Obama another Peace Prize and string Bush up from the lampposts.

[peggy]

I know, unbelievable, eh? Back in the Bush years Peggy was here 3X daily spewing Bush hatred along with a whole slew of people, and moderators insured that it continued by yanking posting privileges for those on the wrong side.

It's important to remember this one thing. In the famous words of PDQ (a favorite SLN poster of mine who was banned for citing an incident in history during one of the Bush bashing events here)

George Bush isn't the President now. Try to get over it.


..sigh...You know, IL has been floating this lie for, well, forever now. So come on moderators. Redfox, Alan, Rob, Gregg...others. Set the record straight please. Can any of you ban a poster simply because you disagree with their position? Or for 'citing an incident..'? Or does that poster have to directly attack someone verbally? Or go on with a string of profanities? Can any one of you do this, by yourself? Or do you need discussion and consensus with your fellow moderators? Please put this to rest.
I am so tired of reading this lie over and over again. It's gotten old, real fast.
And I do believe if you could ban someone simply for their idiotic views, then these boards would be mighty thin indeed.;)

[bae]

I was banned back in the day much as IL suggests happened.

[Alan]

..sigh...You know, IL has been floating this lie for, well, forever now. So come on moderators. Redfox, Alan, Rob, Gregg...others. Set the record straight please. Can any of you ban a poster simply because you disagree with their position? Or for 'citing an incident..'?
Not anymore.
But, it did happen some during the last administration. Hell, I've been banned 8 or 10 times myself.

The last time involved one of our moderators and the aforementioned PDQ. The moderator made several involved posts disparaging John McCain's wife, really catty, mean-spirited stuff. Then PDQ said that John Edwards was a scumbag. The same moderator came down hard on him, forcing him to delete his post based upon a forum prohibiton against bashing public figures. Now, with my previous experience I should have known better, but I simply had to ask what was the difference between the moderator's posts and PDQ's. I never saw the response because my posting privileges disappeared within minutes of the question.

They used to publicly say that banning someone required behind the scenes discussion and consensus, but in my case, I think the consensus was that if I ever said anything they didn't like, whoever was closest should just do it.

Things have changed though, for the better.

[try2bfrugal]

Here is a comment I saw on a news article that sums up my views pretty well -

I don't see much sense in starting a war that will end up killing thousands to protest the killing of hundreds.

[gimmethesimplelife]

I'm not sure who you consider the "conservative" posters here but by my tally everyone potentially in that category was consistent in their positions in 2003 and now. It's not a partisan Bush vs Obama, it's a principled don't bomb people position. I think to portray it as a partisan issue is unworthy of the people who contribute here and the people on the ground in Syria who will be on the receiving end of your political payback. PS- Yossarian is the protagonist in an anti-war novel.I wondered where your name came from, actually....now I know.

You mention consistency in position of folks here in 2003 and now. Call me a Johnny come lately, I entered the scene in 2005. So I missed the reactions here to Shock and Awe.
Rob

[gimmethesimplelife]

Here is a comment I saw on a news article that sums up my views pretty well -

I don't see much sense in starting a war that will end up killing thousands to protest the killing of hundreds.+1

[freein05]

This Obama and blue voter is against bombing Syria !!!!

[Gregg]

I was banned back in the day much as IL suggests happened.


Hell, I've been banned 8 or 10 times myself.

I was too young to be active in 1960's protests and now this. Starting to feel like the conservative wallflower around here.




The last time involved one of our moderators and the aforementioned PDQ. The moderator made several involved posts disparaging John McCain's wife, really catty, mean-spirited stuff. Then PDQ said that John Edwards was a scumbag. The same moderator came down hard on him, forcing him to delete his post based upon a forum prohibiton against bashing public figures. Now, with my previous experience I should have known better, but I simply had to ask what was the difference between the moderator's posts and PDQ's. I never saw the response because my posting privileges disappeared within minutes of the question.

It's good that we've all grown up a little bit, but you have to admit there is a delicious irony there that probably wouldn't be possible today.

[Gregg]

This Obama and blue voter is against bombing Syria !!!!

This red stater and more often than not red voter is right there with you free.

[Zoebird]

For my own part, I see positives and negatives in all the various administrations going back to G. Washington. Fact is, it's never been roses, hearts, flowers, unicorns and their sparkly-rainbow farts.

It's always been a messy mess with some mess thrown in.

[iris lilies]

I'm not sure who you consider the "conservative" posters here but by my tally everyone potentially in that category was consistent in their positions in 2003 and now. It's not a partisan Bush vs Obama, it's a principled don't bomb people position. I think to portray it as a partisan issue is unworthy of the people who contribute here and the people on the ground in Syria who will be on the receiving end of your political payback. PS- Yossarian is the protagonist in an anti-war novel.

It's in my top ten favorite novels of all times. It's probably the only American one on my list.

I got Joseph Heller to sign my worn paperback copy decades ago.

[flowerseverywhere]

I've been reading these posts for days and following the news stories. Personally, before we even think of taking military action, I would like to see a dialogue between our leaders of the following : What is the purpose of strikes, what do we hope to accomplish? How many innocent civilians will be killed (I think the numbers are at about 100,000 in Iraq according to various sources)? How will a military strike help the average citizen of Syria? Are we sure it was the government and not some terrorist group? How will a military strike hurt the regime? Are we trying to get the regime out of office or strengthen it and why? Are we willing to enter into a full scale war and send our young men and women in without any other countries supporting us? I don't care if it is Bush, Obama, Clinton or Reagan at the helm of the ship. We need a pilot with a clear plan of what we plan on doing, how we plan on doing it, and how to get out before we take action. I am firmly opposed to taking military action regardless of who is in charge. Maybe they need to sit and watch "The Fog Of War" about Vietnam and how easy it is to lose our way and be bogged down in an unsolvable quagmire.

[gimmethesimplelife]

This Obama and blue voter is against bombing Syria !!!!+1 Same here. And I don't think continuing to support Obama = supporting a conflict in Syria. It doesn't for me, and I'm seeing here it doesn't for you.......Rob

[gimmethesimplelife]

Something I just thought of out of nowhere about Syria. Years ago I watched on old Gregory Peck movie, I think it was The Snows of Kiliminjaro? (sp?) In it his newspaper reporter character has a line about covering "the fracus (sp?) in Damascus." I believe this movie was made in 1951 though I have not googled it. My point is that this area has had issues and has been unstable since before I was even thought of, indeed since any of us were even thought of. I don't see that engaging in a conflict with Syria is going to usher in long term positive change and stability for the country. (though it may render the US and also possibly France - who I have heard is willing to participate with the US in striking Syria - more economically unstable.) Rob

[Zoebird]

lawrence of arabia, anyone? it keeps going way back.

[CathyA]

To me, its really odd to make all of this so public, on a daily basis........about the U.S.'s military plans, when information is so readily available internationally. Makes me wonder if this was planned............like to see if just making them think we were going to send missiles would slow them down......or maybe they knew the Syrians would move all their military bases to other places and we'd find out more of their locations. Or maybe this is just the way a democracy has to work (to inform the U.S. public about what its doing) and the downside is that, in doing that, the whole world knows too. Makes me think there's more to it all.
I just wish we'd stop putting our big fat nose in everybody's business. I know there's alot of humanitarian issues, but why does it always have to be us? ...........especially when our own house is not in order.

[peggy]

(on moderation) OK, well fair enough. It has been my observation that there are always 3 sides to a story. Yours, his, and the truth. But, since we don't have any of the moderators from 'before', then I will take y'alls word for it. I do remember some pretty nasty, personal attacks, which I believe played a bigger role in this than some would admit.
As far as criticisms of public figures, well, they are public, and in such invite this. I have no problem with this. Never did. If you want to say Bush is an idiot, or Obama is a commie, then go for it. The only thing I would object to, and I hope the moderators would too, is a string of profanities, or death threats (or wishes of such). But generally those types of posts are spam/trolls anyway.
Obviously we can't know what went on then, but I'm wondering if an answer to a poster that reads something like "Bush/Obama/whoever is a complete idiot commie, and you can go piss up a rope" has less to do with the criticism of the public figure and more to do with the personal attack of the board member. But I digress...>8)

Personally, I've felt the moderation here, before and now, has been pretty good, and I'm sure a difficult job at best. this is a smart bunch here, and although I don't always agree, I enjoy reading everyone's opinion. Everyone's.

(on Syria) It would seem we pretty much have consensus. I don't think anyone here enjoys seeing those poor people suffer, but enough is enough. There is suffering all over the world, including in our own country, and considering the history of that part of the world, there simply aren't enough resources to 'fix' it. I'm pretty sure everyone here wishes we could, but sooner or later reality must be acknowledged. I vote for sooner. And I don't think Obama has ulterior motives in this. I think he truly believes the onus is on him to fix it, and help the kids. That happens when you have young kids of your own. Everything is viewed through that looking glass.

[pinkytoe]

Wouldn't it be something if we protested as we did for Vietnam? According to local senators, they are hearing via email and letters that 100% of their constituents are against this move.

[CathyA]

What's unfortunate, is that alot of kids that are of the age now that some of us were during the protests of the Vietnam war, don't even know what's going on in the world.

[Gregg]

What's unfortunate, is that alot of kids that are of the age now that some of us were during the protests of the Vietnam war, don't even know what's going on in the world.

I think there was a heightened awareness at the end of the 1960s, but by the time I graduated HS in 1979 most of my classmates were almost completely ignorant of activity outside our small town. It seems to me that is a fairly normal condition and that the protests of the 60s were the anomaly. Not that its defensible in any way, but I don't think it is fair to pick on the current generation specifically.

It is even possible that the current crop of young folks are more aware (thanks to available technology), but they just don't know what to do with the knowledge. DD2 had a Government & Politics class in HS last year. They were never taught that it was possible for them to contact their elected representatives. She knew it thanks to her environment, but the rest of the class would have no idea how to do that unless someone at home showed them. That is truly sad.

[Tradd]

Gregg, I can't remember if I've posted this here before, but I've got coworkers of a large age range who don't pay any attention to any sort of news. They're proud of it and even brag about it. They are PROUD of being uninformed and ignorant of anything of substance.

Yet, they know exactly what is happening on Dancing with the Stars and that ilk.

[Rogar]

I have to confess that while I am not in favor of a strike, the issue is not as clear cut to me as it seems to others. As bad as most forms of warfare are, the intentional use of nerve gas against innocent civilians and children just seems like a quantum degree worse. It is an international law of a sort that no other nation seems to want to stand up for. If congress votes for a limited strike, I can see a moderate possibility that it would discourage it's use in again Syria or elsewhere. What I mostly have issues with is that NATO or other international groups have no interest in helping to enforce the international agreements, so what good are they?

[ApatheticNoMore]

Wouldn't it be something if we protested as we did for Vietnam? According to local senators, they are hearing via email and letters that 100% of their constituents are against this move.

I am willing. See you in the streets? :) But there has to be adequate interest in doing so. 5 people standing around protesting won't accomplish anything.


As bad as most forms of warfare are, the intention use of nerve gas against innocent civilians and children just seems like a quantum degree worse.

than the chemical warfare the u.s. uses like depleted uranium? I'm not convinced.


If congress votes for a limited strike, I can see a moderate possibility that it would discourage it's use in again Syria or elsewhere.

I don't think there can necessarily be such a thing as a limited strike, I'm willing to go all in to oppose war now in order to oppose major war. Plus I don't see it necessarily discouraging use elsewhere if countries perceive the U.S. mostly acts out of self-interest rather than priciple in deciding whom to attack, and why shouldn't they perceive this? Seems to be the truth to me.

[CathyA]

Now they're saying that because of the military bases being moved, it might take pilots flying aircraft with bombs, to reach the new places. See........its already growing.........

Why do you think the rest of the world doesn't want to get involved? Do they have their own problems to deal with? Do they not want to irritate the oil countries? Do they have no money, even if they wanted to help?
Maybe there are few other countries so willing to get into such debt with becoming involved, as we are?

Like I said, we need to keep our noses out of some conflicts. Then again..........when SHOULD we step up to the plate?
I haven't a clue what to do. But we are definitely into too much everywhere......with so many problems in our own country that aren't being addressed.

I heard a news report this morning that the Syrian rebels are really irritated with the U.S. because we didn't send enough guns/ammo/helmets, etc.
Who else can we get mad at us?

[Florence]

Today I called my Representative Pete Olson, Senator Ted Cruz, and Senator John Cornyn and expressed my strong opposition to any U.S. intervention in the Syrian civil war. Spoke with staffers. Hope it does some good.

[RosieTR]

Wouldn't it be something if we protested as we did for Vietnam? According to local senators, they are hearing via email and letters that 100% of their constituents are against this move.

I did protest the (second) Iraq War during the buildup of that in early 2002. Fat lot of good that did-though I did manage a great pic of the police lined up in riot gear in CO Springs. Also managed not to get much tear gas and not arrested. But it didn't stop the war that what, 50% or so of Americans opposed? But I think the opposition among the American public now is even greater, even with fewer large public protests.

As for Fog of War, yep. Maybe the difference between different reactions to this is that some folks see this as "what if this is like we could intervene in WWII way before Germany became a real menace?" and others are thinking "Vietnam marries Iraq and Syria is their baby". Since last I checked, Syria isn't invading other countries and systematically rounding up all members of a certain group in order to gas them, I would be inclined to think the latter.

I still wonder why the odd bedfellows, though. Boehner and McCain are Republicans, Kerry and Obama are Democrats. Kerry and McCain have both seen war very up close and personal, so you'd think they would be more reluctant. I can't figure it out, and nobody here has cared to speculate. This may tie in to CathyA's idea about why so public, why does it seem almost planned? I think ApatheticNoMore has also alluded to this, too. In any case, I have to agree on the points several have made about defining the purpose, etc. That sort of thing is rarely done in war prep these days, which is likely why we've been at war, and are still at war, since what, 2001? Twelve years. Deaths are lighter than in past wars but the casualties are still staggering. Every so often I hear a lecture on soldiers with Traumatic Brain Injury and PTSD, and the stats are pretty sobering.

[gimmethesimplelife]

Rosie, just think if we have American boots on Syrian soil - when the surviving US military returns at some point, I bet it's worse for them than returning from Vietnam was for a different generation. Like with Vietnam, so many don't want the US there and will quite likely not think in terms of the personal sacrifice and suffering of the survivors.....I really, really, really hope we don't cause yet more military PTSD for these lame wars.....Rob

[Gregg]

Gregg, I can't remember if I've posted this here before, but I've got coworkers of a large age range who don't pay any attention to any sort of news. They're proud of it and even brag about it. They are PROUD of being uninformed and ignorant of anything of substance.

Yet, they know exactly what is happening on Dancing with the Stars and that ilk.

Sad, aye? Don't get me wrong Tradd, I'm not saying any generation since the advent of television is up to speed on anything. Personally I think everyone since the end of WWII (and maybe back into radio's heyday) has been on soma with the possible exception of the mid/late 60's. But that is a completely different topic and I don't want to hijack this thread with it because we need to be talking about Syria (IMO).

[CathyA]

The "Counterculture".........that was a great name for it. Too bad it fizzled out. :(

[Rogar]

It looks like Syria has some sort of acceptance to surrender chemical weapons? This seems like a reasonable diplomatic solution that would defuse things. Rather interesting that Russia had to be the one to suggest it. I imagine Obama will give his read on things tonight.

[CathyA]

But if Syria's leader won't even admit to having chemical weapons, how could this even happen? I would love to think it would work........but when you're talking about liars, its hard to understand how it could.
I'm really surprised that Putin suggested it.

[Alan]

I'm really surprised that Putin suggested it.
Putin is an old cold warrior at heart. Given the opportunity to upstage the United States and appear as the calm, rational and in charge world leader is a major coup for him.

He plays the social media political game much better than Obama.

[Gregg]

Yup, it looks like Assad will take the Russian deal. In a strange way the President is the big winner. He was either going to have egg on his face and be negotiating from a severely disadvantaged position for the rest of his term or he would have had a significant political advantage, but would have disenfranchised the extremely high percentage of Americans who didn't want us to touch Syria.

It's well known that the last thing you want to do in negotiations is back your opponent into a corner where the only choice is to fight to get out. I'm afraid Mr. Obama scores a fail in that regard. At least the stalemate is over.

[iris lilies]

Yup, it looks like Assad will take the Russian deal. In a strange way the President is the big winner. He was either going to have egg on his face and be negotiating from a severely disadvantaged position for the rest of his term or he would have had a significant political advantage, but would have disenfranchised the extremely high percentage of Americans who didn't want us to touch Syria.

It's well known that the last thing you want to do in negotiations is back your opponent into a corner where the only choice is to fight to get out. I'm afraid Mr. Obama scores a fail in that regard. At least the stalemate is over.

Ah that Nobel Prize committee was right as it turns out! What a sophisticated move by our President. Think about this maneuver--the eyes of the world are focused on his Red Line while he is (seemingly) flailing about in acting: No Congress, wait, now Congress. Will any of our friends go with us? Oh, just the French and are they even friends? Will the U.S. make a move? Then Kerry joins up and runs around to get on all 5 Sunday talk shows, that is a breathless feat in itself so we will forgive him the entertaining gaffes. It's chaos.

Meanwhile, President Obama has been working behind the scenes-- and so cleverly!--to get his buddy Putin to offer up this surprise option for turning in weapons. Obama gives up his own face-saving importance in the world arena in order to achieve world peace because he knew this offer would meet with more acceptance coming from the Russians.

He deliberately played the fool to support the staged diplomatic role of Putin.

What statesmanship! What stealth brilliance from the Univ of Chicago Law professor! Some here knew that he could do it but those like me had no faith. Shame, shame on me.

[IshbelRobertson]

According to some reports here in the UK, Mr Kerry suggested that a way of Assad avoiding US strikes was to give up chemical weapons . Putin latched on to that 'solution' which makes him the peace bringer.

Now, will Assad comply?

[Alan]

.....He deliberately played the fool to support the staged diplomatic role of Putin.

What statesmanship! What stealth brilliance from the Univ of Chicago Law professor!
Brava! Iris
Let it be said and written by the dedicated far and wide. A brilliant piece of statecraft from the only elected official on the entire planet capable of healing the earth, stopping the rise of the oceans and bringing peace to nations near and far.


Some here knew that he could do it but those like me had no faith. Shame, shame on me.
Go forth and sin no more my child.

[ApatheticNoMore]

But if Syria's leader won't even admit to having chemical weapons, how could this even happen? I would love to think it would work........but when you're talking about liars, its hard to understand how it could.

I don't think they deny *having* chemical weapons anyway, just using them, and there's still no proof. You get UN inspections to make sure they don't have them, it's the best that can be done. Yes the world is filled with lying leaders, but *ALL* arms control agreements depend on inspections and then trust I guess (yea there's probably also spying going on). But the alternative to such sane diplomacy is insane war. It doesn't depend on world leaders being good, because none of them are (some worse than others I guess).

I don't even kind of think this is about Obama's domestic image, nor do I care. I think it might be about getting scared about the fight they'd actually picked with Russia, Iran, etc.. Getting way more than they bargained for.

[Alan]

According to some reports here in the UK, Mr Kerry suggested that a way of Assad avoiding US strikes was to give up chemical weapons . Putin latched on to that 'solution' which makes him the peace bringer.

Now, will Assad comply?
My guess is no. It seems to me that this 'solution' is a perfect means to delay any outside action while making the United States appear the bully.

President Obama is scheduled to address the nation on this topic tonight. It was originally scheduled to make the case for military intervention, now it will be interesting to see how, or even whether, the message will be changed.

[redfox]

My guess is no. It seems to me that this 'solution' is a perfect means to delay any outside action while making the United States appear the bully.

President Obama is scheduled to address the nation on this topic tonight. It was originally scheduled to make the case for military intervention, now it will be interesting to see how, or even whether, the message will be changed.

Agreed. Most interesting series of events.

[CathyA]

Yes Alan, I was thinking that too......That Putin did it as a way of looking like he could accomplish more than the U.S.........whether he really thought it was a good idea/feasible or not.......like he was a peacemaker. (This in itself, makes me suspicious). Its too out of character, even if he was wanting to just look good.

I would have thought that Obama would have rescheduled his talk to the nation tonight, in light of the possible changes. So much up in the air right now.

[goldensmom]

Brilliant.....referring to Putin.

[Florence]

I don't care how it comes about, who plotted what, or whose ego is miffed. I just don't want us to intervene in Syria and get tangled up in that quagmire. And I think the CIA should stop training whoever it is they are training in Jordan--the people in the Middle East seem to be quite capable of fighting on their own.

[Rogar]

Yup, it looks like Assad will take the Russian deal. In a strange way the President is the big winner. He was either going to have egg on his face and be negotiating from a severely disadvantaged position for the rest of his term or he would have had a significant political advantage, but would have disenfranchised the extremely high percentage of Americans who didn't want us to touch Syria.

It's well known that the last thing you want to do in negotiations is back your opponent into a corner where the only choice is to fight to get out. I'm afraid Mr. Obama scores a fail in that regard. At least the stalemate is over.

Or it is possible in light of a likely strike from the U.S., that the surrender of chemicals seemed like a really good idea. Maybe backing Assad into a corner was a helpful part of things. Assad was interviewed on Charlie Rose last night and he actually seemed like a soft spoken reasonable man. But who knows what evil might lurk...

[ApatheticNoMore]

I don't care how it comes about, who plotted what, or whose ego is miffed. I just don't want us to intervene in Syria and get tangled up in that quagmire.

+1

I could double play every possible outcome for whom it benefits (and look I admit even war might backfire in very interesting ways), but I don't want the bombs to drop period and innocent people to get killed in a conflict that simply doesn't seem to have ANY good solutions. Diplomacy *IS* the good solution. So bleh to breaking eggs (by which I mean killing people) to make omelets in 11th dimensional chess.

[CathyA]

Or it is possible in light of a likely strike from the U.S., that the surrender of chemicals seemed like a really good idea. Maybe backing Assad into a corner was a helpful part of things. Assad was interviewed on Charlie Rose last night and he actually seemed like a soft spoken reasonable man. But who knows what evil might lurk...
I know Rogar.........I saw the interview too and its hard to believe that he could be so cruel. I guess he used to be a medical eye doctor. Guess he threw out the "First, do no harm" thing.

[Alan]

I know Rogar.........I saw the interview too and its hard to believe that he could be so cruel.

I'm not sure that he had anything to do with the chemical weapons use. We've seen video which showed the aftermath, but I've seen no evidence of who did the deed. It makes me wonder if someone isn't engaging us in an international game of chess while the only game we know is poker.

[Alan]

Brilliant.....referring to Putin.

If I were him, I'd make President Obama turn over his Nobel Peace Prize as part of the deal.

[Rogar]

I'm not sure that he had anything to do with the chemical weapons use. We've seen video which showed the aftermath, but I've seen no evidence of who did the deed. It makes me wonder if someone isn't engaging us in an international game of chess while the only game we know is poker.

I know hindsight is 20/20 but it would have saved a few billion dollars and thousands of lives to have been equally skeptical of the WMD intel in Iraq.

As Syria has unfolded it certainly does seem like there are many nations or groups who might have a vested interest. Iran, Israel, Russia, Al Qaeda, and so forth. I am not satisfied with the evidence and it seems like has only been touched upon by the media, which is a mystery to me. I'm sure this will be part of the Obama talk tonight.

There is a famous case from my home town where a known member of organized crime was acquitted of murder because none of the witnesses saw the bullet leave the gun. I suppose at some point you have to have have some faith in the integrity of those presenting the evidence.

[flowerseverywhere]

I have seen no one question if any of this deal is in any way related to Snowden. It came to my mind as I was thinking about the whole mess. And, just because the man was soft spoken and articulate does not mean he is not evil. Many evil men were very charismatic. Lenin, Stalin and Hitler all had their followers and attracted youth who proudly wore their uniforms without coercion.

[flowerseverywhere]

another thing about being so cruel. Drones are hitting civilian populations and we still, still, still hold men in Guantanamo for years without trial.

[bae]

It makes me wonder if someone isn't engaging us in an international game of chess while the only game we know is poker.

The two "players" are certainly used to different games...

http://www.ijreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Obama-Throw_lightbox1.jpg

http://i4.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article1365858.ece/ALTERNATES/s615/Vladimir%20Putin-1365858

[ApatheticNoMore]

I have seen no one question if any of this deal is in any way related to Snowden.

possible, who knows what dirt Russia has on the U.S. now. And if it prevented war: Snowden for the noble peace prize!


And, just because the man was soft spoken and articulate does not mean he is not evil. Many evil men were very charismatic. Lenin, Stalin and Hitler all had their followers and attracted youth who proudly wore their uniforms without coercion. Another thing about being so cruel. Drones are hitting civilian populations and we still, still, still hold men in Guantanamo for years without trial.

Yea it's why we keep getting this garbage, why we keep electing drone murderers, because they appear nice and sometimes articulate too (no angel born in hell, could break that satan's spell). Assad is not a good man by the record of what he has done. And neither is Obama although no probably not in Assad territory. It doesn't mean diplomacy isn't far preferable to war. It most definitely is. I sometimes wonder if most people are not just hopelessly naive. Elect Obama in order to make a stand against wars, find out he seems to want to start WWIII (averted for the time being I guess). But he never ran as against wars, not into the campaign anyway, maybe very early on, but he changed his tune by the debates in 08. I'm naive too in my own way,. However I trust those who are completely un-naive in all ways EVEN LESS than the naive.

[Gregg]

I'm sure there is a long list of serial killers, war lords, mass rapists, etc. that are quite affable as well. Does anyone just suppose that the calm, quiet demeanor is what Assad was trying to portray? An actor on his stage. On the flip side, is there any reason to think mass murders, ethnic cleansers or psychopaths in general will have large bug eyes, pound fists on tables or be otherwise out of control in televised interviews? This calm and soft spoken man has overseen the killing of 100,000 people in his charge. Lets not take our eyes off the ball here. If anything I am somewhat disgusted with Charlie Rose.

[CathyA]

Just to clarify..........when I said that when seeing Assad's interview, it was hard to believe that he could be so cruel.........it didn't in any way mean I, personally, was having trouble believing it. I'm sure he could very well be like alot of the other monster leaders......who appeared very soft-spoken and reasonable. Many sociopaths/psychopaths act quite reasonable part of the time.

[CathyA]

I don't know...........This new development seems really unbelievable to me. I hope no one is trying to pull a fast one on us. Maybe its because I don't really trust Assad or Putin. I hope I'm wrong.

[bae]

I hope no one is trying to pull a fast one on us. Maybe its because I don't really trust Assad or Putin. I hope I'm wrong.

Well....looks like we've been played, again:

http://www.france24.com/en/20130911-russia-renew-offer-supply-300s-iran



Russian President Vladimir Putin will offer to supply Iran S-300 air defence missile systems as well as build a second reactor at the Bushehr nuclear plant, the Kommersant business daily reported Wednesday.


I wonder what Sarah Palin sees out her window now? :-)

[bae]

Did you see Putin's op-ed piece in the NYT yesterday? I think it is superb.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/12/opinion/putin-plea-for-caution-from-russia-on-syria.html?_r=1&

[catherine]

Did you see Putin's op-ed piece in the NYT yesterday? I think it is superb.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/12/opinion/putin-plea-for-caution-from-russia-on-syria.html?_r=1&

Yes, I did read it! I think it's amazing that he even wrote it for the NYT! I do think it was a very lucid piece, and a really, really great achievement, to make us look like potential wanton aggressors while claiming the peacekeeping role for himself.

I always love to read the comments, and as can be expected there were many comments about not being able to trust him, and he's nothing but a hypocrite, but it was certainly a political tour de force.

[Alan]

I … don’t remember this being part of the offer. http://news.yahoo.com/assad-syria-fulfil-chemical-weapons-initiative-u-ends-155433528.html

Obama had better run it past Putin right away to see how he wants the U.S. to respond.


Syria will fulfil an initiative to hand over its chemical weapons only when the United States stops threatening to strike Syria, RIA news agency quoted President Bashar al-Assad as saying in a television interview…

“When we see the United States really wants stability in our region and stops threatening, striving to attack, and also ceases arms deliveries to terrorists, then we will believe that the necessary processes can be finalized,” he was quoted as saying in an interview with Russian state television.

[ApatheticNoMore]

I do think it was a very lucid piece, and a really, really great achievement, to make us look like potential wanton aggressors while claiming the peacekeeping role for himself.

It's not that great an acheivement to make an agressor (invading an soverign nation) look like an agressor. It's a simple statement of facts. It's not an amazing rhetorical acheivement to convince people the sky is blue and water is wet. This is agression under international law (sure there is other stuff going on in Syria - lots of international involvement, no hands are clean - but an attack is definitely agression under international law).


I always love to read the comments, and as can be expected there were many comments about not being able to trust him, and he's nothing but a hypocrite

all true AND all ad hominem.


I … don’t remember this being part of the offer. http://news.yahoo.com/assad-syria-fu...155433528.html

Obama had better run it past Putin right away to see how he wants the U.S. to respond.

bilaterally disarment in Syria is probably the best way to end the civil war, though it should be bilaterial, Russia would need to stop arming Assad.

[Yossarian]

Did you see Putin's op-ed piece in the NYT yesterday? I think it is superb.


Clearly he outplayed Barry, but don't anyone think for a minute he wouldn't forget all those principles when it suits, like, oh say Georgia?

[Gregg]

“When we see the United States really wants stability in our region and stops threatening, striving to attack, and also ceases arms deliveries to terrorists, then we will believe that the necessary processes can be finalized,” he was quoted as saying in an interview with Russian state television.

This voter would just as soon see all such deliveries by the US ceased. Besides, most terrorists seem to prefer Kalashnikovs.

[iris lilies]

Before the Russians brokered this possible peace deal. I shot off messages to my two Senators, one Republican, one Democrat.

The Republcian, on the House Service Committee, said no way he would be voting for military action. The Democrat (also well known as lap dog to the Prez) said she refuses to rule it out.

The party of War, the Democrats, are back.

[gimmethesimplelife]

Before the Russians brokered this possible peace deal. I shot off messages to my two Senators, one Republican, one Democrat.

The Republcian, on the House Service Committee, said no way he would be voting for military action. The Democrat (also well known as lap dog to the Prez) said she refuses to rule it out.

The party of War, the Democrats, are back.Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't a Republican at the helm for Iraq and Afghanistan? Maybe they are BOTH parties of war? But it does seem to me that in my lifetime Republicans have been at the helm for the bigger ones - though it remains to be seen what happens with Syria, I'll give you that. Rob

[ApatheticNoMore]

Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't a Republican at the helm for Iraq and Afghanistan? Maybe they are BOTH parties of war?

large contingents are. So the War Party generally refers to the parts within both parties that want war.


But it does seem to me that in my lifetime Republicans have been at the helm for the bigger ones - though it remains to be seen what happens with Syria, I'll give you that.

that's a pretty big caveat. My lifetime - well it's not like I was alive during the LBJ administration. So yea maybe. But to ignore Vietnam just because I wasn't born would make very little sense IMO (I mean I've heard of egotistical and narcissistic but I submit that would be taking it to the point of absurdity). Yea Syria, who knows, a war wouldn't surprise me, they're still trying to elbow in somehow and continue arming. Escaping a war so narrowly surprises me, but I'll take it.