Comments
Please wait...
Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.
More In News
Popular Articles
is a proud member of the
media network
media network
All contents © Index Newspapers LLC
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
we yell at each other plenty, and it's all contained in 1 place.
What would the middle east look like today if we'd simply let it evolve on its own?
As far as I'm concerned, that makes you *more* qualified to have an opinion on Syria than everyone who claims they were right from the first. It means you learned from your mistakes.
Of course, I think it is perfectly acceptable to not have a opinion on Syria, or to have one which is too conflicted to express.
"Maybe a guest post from someone at a local university might be worthwhile."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curveball_%…
Even people with knowledge of the country will have their own agendas.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmed_Chala…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Dossie…
@6, feel free to explain why you think Al Qaeda would be better stewards of Syria, and Syria's chemical weapons, than Assad. Be sure to include the likelihood that the war will intensify, not abate.
Remember that according to probable future president Hillary Clinton, Assad is a "reformer" (2011).
Remember also that the US happily used loads of chemical weapons in Iraq in 2006. I don't remember; did we send cruise missiles in to bomb the White House then? According to this famous red line we should have. Can't just sit back and watch. Is KFC open yet?
Bombing Syria is a great plan if you want to do nothing, and it's even a better plan if you want to make things worse.
2) That candle was clearly against cultural appropriation.
@16: Is everything about gay sex for you?
Read an article about foreign policy-Hmmm gay sex...
Read an article about gun violence-Mmmmmm gay seeeeex...!
Read the nutrition information on the cereal box at breakfast-MMMMMMhuhhuhhuhGHUAAAAAAYSEhehehEEEEEEEX111!!1
Your kitchen must be a mess.
Talked to your Pastor yet, about your obsession with this Blog?
It might be easier on your blood pressure if you just stopped obsessing about that which bothers you. Try it!
I am only aware of some people who assert that we used sometimes banned in some situations but otherwise permitted weapons in the wrong situations in Iraq. I don't know if that is the same thing. Unless you are talking about something else, those claims mostly center around White Phosphorus which is common and allowed as a marker and an incendiary. That some people are making the argument that we used it for its chemical properties (while the military claims it was just as an incendiary) is not the same type of situation as the use of Sarin gas.
@6/13 - That point is a continued misunderstanding of the goals of the strikes. The goal is not to change the outcome. The goal is remind people that chemical weapons are off limits and if they use chemical weapons the cost (incoming US cruise missiles) will be greater than any benefit.
WTF are you talking about chemical weapons in Iraq in 2006? Tear gas? Unless it's a lethal gas used indiscriminately, it's hardly the same thing.
But yes...Syria is a complicated issue with a lot of potential for blowback, but it's not Iraq, it's not Afghanistan, or Vietnam, or the Alamo.
Being wrong about pretty much everything, I find myself in this instance lacking a strong opinion one way or another. This is in some ways similar to Bosnia, but reversed - instead of a majority "ethnically cleansing" its population, the minority group here is mercilessly killing the Syrian people. From what I can tell, however, it isn't because this group is considered inferior - it is in an attempt to hold power, and protect minority populations.
Everything that I understand about Syria informs me that there are no good options for the international community. If Saudi Arabia thinks that Assad is such a bastard, why aren't they intervening?
End of the day - it is a big, complex, mess. I can fully understand the lack of SLOG coverage - no need to opine and be completely wrong on this issue.
Because every option is completely wrong.
So you subscribe to the idea that dropping a few bombs on one side of a civil war between religious fanatics and authoritarian thugs is going to "teach them a lesson" ? /:| They will suddenly all decide to play nice with each other?
BTW, switching from outright hate speech to condescending proselytism isn't taking the high road; it's becoming a politician.
------------------------
That's me. So far I have been able to see the benefit of nearly everyone's argument, except for the wingnut "invade and take over" crazies. I'm leaning toward "The US should do something, but military action is unlikely to be the best choice of "something"." I haven't got any wonderful ideas that would solve everything.
This is the price of empire, in this case Corporate Empire, where the US military is little more than a mercenary force to protect and further multinational corporate interests. Of course, the cost is born by us, the taxpayers, and soldiers and civilians that die in these conflicts, and the environment in general, while the 'benefits' are concentrated in select boardrooms around the globe.
Just like Iraq and Afghanistan, Syria is a very old country with millenia-spanning ethnic and religious hatreds and rivalries. Dropping bombs on their heads will have zero effect on that whatsoever. Help one side win? It splinters and then fights among itself. Kill the leader of the bad guys? They splinter and go into guerilla mode.
I appreciate the cynacism, but I really don't think the proposed actions can be cast in that light. Not once you realize what is actually being proposed.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2005…
Although there has been civilization in Syria for a very long time, Syria is actually a very new country, which is a huge part of its problems. In most of Africa and the Middle East european colonizers drew random borders that ignored those centuries old ethnic and religious divisions. Syria is a product of that same process.
"they are not designed to help one side over the other,"
If you bomb the assets of side A because they are the assets of side A then you are supporting side B.
If you kill people on side A because they are on side A then you are supporting side B.
Whether it was "designed" to support side B or not, that is what is being accomplished.
At the very least can you please give the fact that this is happening some space in the paper. Even just a picture of Syria on the cover would help.
Also, oh my god we absolutely should not fucking bomb them. Oh my god.
Of course, even if you accept that Iran is the real enemy and think that's as it should be, attacking Syria won't help. It will just marginalize the people in Iran who want to make peace, because Iran's alliance with Syria means it has to respond diplomatically and/or militarily to a US attack. That's good, I guess, if your goal is to sell weapons and make money off war, but not if your goal is to avoid a war with Iran.
"It is like a penalty for cheating in sports. The goal of the penalty is not to take the side of the non-penalized team, it is to make sure that the cost of cheating outweighs the benefit."
So you see America as the referee in this civil war?
If we don't like how you killed X number of people then we'll kill X number of your people?
What gives America the authority to be the referee?
Killing is okay as long as it is the right kind of killing.
@50 - I hear what you are saying, and I think that Iran's reaction is worth considering as potential fallout, but I don't think it is true that our motivation in striking Syria has much to do with Iran or the bigger picture (except that they think future failing dictatorships will be tempted to use chemical weapons). I think if that was the case you would see a broader plan, one that was designed to change the outcome. Obviously we ignored Iraq's use of chemical weapos when it was politically expediant, but that was a very different administration. The extremely narrow scope of the proposed military action is pretty good evidence to me that it really is just about deterring chemical weapons.
The US has never given a shit about the Geneva Protocol, not in Fallujah, not in Abu Ghraib, not in Gitmo, not in Afghanistan. We have EXPLICITLY STATED that we're above international law. We commit torture on a regular basis. Petraeus has admitted it, McCain has admitted it.
Jesus Christ, it's like the war pheromones have turned everyone in here into a Bushie all over again. Who's on your side? Rumsfeld, Yoo, Bremer, Cheney, Wolfowitz, all back on TV every night shouting for war. Fantastic.
Think about that.
Now, how many Trillions are you willing to waste on a Third War instead of investing them in US solar wind tidal and geothermal to destroy al-Qaeda once and for all - solar and wind are cheaper than the terrorist-supporting oil.
You want a War? Then get real and PULL OUT THE STOPS.
Do nothing (or rather continue trying to build some international consensus to do something):
Benefits to US, easy no risks taken, the (sad horrifying pick your adjective) story is not our responsibility.
The Rand Paul position
Actively support the rebels, bomb Assad, destroy his air force and train rebel fighters
The John McCain/Lindsay Graham position
Try and do something to discourage Assad from using chemical weapons and along the way make the rebel fight more equal.
The Obama position
If there has been another option presented here, I don't see it.
so which is the least bad option? I don't know but maybe we should try and agree on the goal in the meantime.
I actually end up in the middle position. The reality is that the US is the international police force. Yep it's hypocritical to some extent but sadly that happens and it isn't an argument for one of these options as far as I can tell.
All these options suck, but at some point if we are the police force, not saying we should be just that we are, then you have to enforce whatever you perceive to be a fundamental violation. Force is always a crappy option...
We need better decision matrices here, and we need someone to lay out the risks and benefits of all three option. That would make this a much more useful debate.
"except that our proposed retaliation is about hitting strategic military targets to degrade his ability to use chemical weapons,"
How does that work?
Why are the "strategic military" sites that oversee chemical weapons different than the "strategic military" sites that oversee conventional warfare?
Or does that "degrade" attack also work on conventional warfare?
And what gives America the legal right to declare itself as the referee and to write the penalties?
"There are international conventions (that Syria has refused to sign) that make the rules, we are not making the rules, just enforcing the penalty. Maybe."
Wouldn't that be up to an international court?
Because if we decide that the penalty is a cruise missile then we are making the rules and the penalties.
"it is meant to degrade their ability to carry out future chemical attacks."
I'm pretty sure that they wouldn't have one command site for chemical weapons and a different command site for conventional weapons.
So if you're supporting a strategic attack to stop their chemical weapons then you're supporting a strategic attack on their conventional capabilities as well.
Which is supporting the rebels.
Sure oil consumption and climate change denial are much bigger global problems. I actually don't know that I think oil use is actually the underlying issue in Syria, as someone noted earlier Syria isn't actually a meaningful oil producer. Yes I understand that oil $ is a huge underlying factor in the ongoing middle east political trauma. But with all of that said, I don't think it actually helps figure out what to do in this case.
Because fundamentally this isn't going to be huge deal unless we take the McCain option and jump into the middle of this in a big way.
To me it seems likely that we are more watching something akin to the Lebanon drama of the 80s... It took years of internal turmoil, millions of refugees and over 100k killed before any way out of the mess was found. Was oil $ a problem sure, but I don't think there was a short term answer to that conflict that would have been obvious based on oil consumption and I think the same is true in Syria today.
Which leads back to the 3 options that I noted, oddly I think we are going to have these same three options repeatedly over the next decade in lots of places. It really would be worth someone trying to develop some criteria for deciding.
"We would be acting as judge, jury, and executioner."
What gives us the right to do that?
"But we still"
Yeah, I know all that. But that isn't relevant because no where in those conventions does it say that we should launch missiles if there is a violation.
What gives us the right to launch missiles because Syrians are killing other Syrians with chemical weapons?
"It seems like the effects will be minimal though, as currently planned anyways."
And how do you know that?
Don't worry, Dear Leader says it is gonna be a limited strike to stop "the bag guys" and their evil chemical weapons.
Forget all about the US supplying Iraq mustard gas to use on Iranians and Kurds.
Forget about the tons of Dioxin sprayed as a defoliant in Vietnam that still causes birth defects to this day
Forget about the Depleted Uranium the US spread over Iraq and the Balkans that will be poisoning people for thousands of years
Forget about the napalm and white phosphorous dumped liberally on the citizens of Fallujah.
Obama deserves to be Judge, Jury, and executioner when it comes to the heinous crime of chemical weapons. Forget about Congress or their constituents. Obama is always right, and anyone who disagrees is racist.
Senator Grampy GetOffMyLawn is cool with legal pot and Obama has a hard on to kill innocents while assuring us he is not interested in killing the sociopath who gasses children.
I really need to slip into a coma....
Yea everything is ok because Dan said he is "sorry" for warmongering.
It's funny that you bring up gay rights on this topic, since I have yet to see you chime in on either of the threads about Russia's bill to take children away from their same-sex parents. Surely you must have some "thoughts" on that?
So Dan has the blood of ~130,000 innocent Iraqis on his hands. Do you want to execute him for his offense, or should I?
Better be you, actually. You can use one of your many guns that you use for self-defense! I don't believe in shooting iraqis or people breaking into my home. Different strokes, I guess.
Well, according to the doctrine of Bill Clintion, media that is complicit in spreading regime propaganda is equally as guilty as the regime itself. This was used to justify the bombing of Serbian media outlets in 1999.
Though overall I think Dan needs to stick to his sex column and keep his nose out of big boy politics.
Also your statement of valuing the life of an attacker more than your own speaks volumes about the soundness of your logic.
And I don't value the life of an attacker more than my own. I also don't pretend to value all life the same when it suits my purposes, like you do. But I believe in the capability of preserving my own life through a variety of different means, instead of just one. And look at that, both of us are still alive. Amazing how well my techniques work, huh?
if you're going to be twerking against a door, LOCK IT FIRST!!!
Sometimes when you want to find out about ants, you kick the anthill to see what happens. With any luck IF they have to, the military will have an accurate idea of where the delivery systems are before they launch.
I am ambivalent about this, but I still can't forgive Clinton for not doing more in Rwanda. At the least, could we agree to ramp up aid for the refugees?
Peace
To my own mind, about all I need is:
http://www.democracynow.org/
Like others have pointed out, it wasn't that a small alt news paper has that much cred on world political events, it's that journalists like Savage and Frizelle used things like war boosterism to get walk on parts to cable news and further their career as establishment hacks. Admitting that you were not only wrong but an asshole to people who were right goes a long way, how did I miss out on this little bit of news until now? There was a copious silence from the eds on the 10 year anniversary of Gulf War II, guess they were out talking to other people, I am reluctantly impressed, thanks for that.
Maiming: you're a sick fuck if you're entertained
Injury: not funny
Pain: sometimes funny
Fear: usually funny
That look of dawning realization that a stupid mistake was made: always funny
Yes lets support Dear Leaders pet islamist Al Queda rebels what could go wrong.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ead_13723…
P.S. Drones don't work on countrys that have an air force.
>79
To the original point of this post - do people really read The Stranger for world news?