If you are debating intervention in Syria ...

[Pangur Bán]

Actually, many of the diplomatic, military and security officials who dictate US behaviour abroad are the same as the 80s. Not that any wise person would buy that argument ('it's 25 years on so they must be different and thus unique in world history!'), but in any case the point is not whether the US is capable of being naughty, but rather that it undermines the idea that use of chemical weapons by Assad would set some dangerous new violation of international 'norms'.

Other earlier violations of such norms:
10 chemical weapons attacks Washington doesn't want you to know

As I've been saying, we shouldn't even be debating this sort of bs, but since many of us plebs take this sort of excuse seriously--seriously enough to let this agenda lead our debate and thought-process--it's worth making these points.

 

[Borachio]

#7 "Remember, attacking an armed enemy soldier on a battlefield with tear gas is a war crime."

Well, um, call me a bonkers old twit, but tear gas isn't a banned chemical weapon, or is it? If it is, then practically every country in the world has violated the ban at some time or other.

Still, never mind. All this talk about chemical weapon use in Syria is just so much political rhetoric, isn't it?

 

[Pangur Bán]

If you are powerful, you get to pick and choose which weapons suit you and which are the evil ones, just like you get to choose which leaders are murdering monsters and which are benevolent despots. As the link indicates, this changes over time according to convenience. There is nothing wrong with chemical weapons per se as far as the US or any other great power is concerned. The baddies and bad things change and alter from political need to political need. But the US will always frame itself to its own people as some kind of John Wayne character saving people and beating up the baddies ... just understand that not everyone in the world gets fed such stuff let alone eats it up; the people it attacks and their allies view such behaviour as you would a cunning and capricious psyshopathic bully (something like the character played by Michael Keaton in Pacific Heights might get the image across).

 

[ReindeerThistle]

Mother's Day, 1985, the Philadelphia Police Department, after firehosing a house containing members of MOVE, including minor children, dropped an incendiary bomb on its own citizens, taking out a whole West Philly neighborhood.

A report on the incident from an independent Minority Fact-Finding Commission concluded a chemical device was used, and that the firehosing was done because the police knew the fire would burn for days -- and it did.

I spoke with the chair of that committee last night.

The minority report is not available on line, sorry.

I'll look for some links.

Just putting this out there.

Sent via mobile.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

It really is about selecting the lesser of two evils.
[/B]

It is indeed about selecting the lesser of two evils.

Which is why I support Bashar Al-Assad in this war against Al-Queda backed militants.

These are not freedom fighters, they are foreign-armed Jihadis who hate everything about us. If Assad falls then they have free reign to do as they please, as does every other ethnic and religious minority in Syria that's just waiting to start killing each other.

Select the lesser of two evils: the strong, secular, slightly-Western in a "we already convinced him to set a date for elections" kind of way. Once his government puts down these rebels (who, by the way, have everything to gain from using chemical weapons, while Assad has nothing to gain, as his conventional forces are already winning the war!) then he will still have serious pressure to reform his government, and given the smart realpolitik kind of guy Assad is, he will very likely make those reforms. And as I said, he's already set a date for elections, and stated that if he wins the elections, it will be his last term as president.

 

[Pangur Bán]

Assad in fact is a perfect US ally were it not for the fact that he is locked up in an alliance system with America's strategic enemies.

 

[Borachio]

Select the lesser of two evils: the strong, secular, slightly-Western in a "we already convinced him to set a date for elections" kind of way. Once his government puts down these rebels (who, by the way, have everything to gain from using chemical weapons, while Assad has nothing to gain, as his conventional forces are already winning the war!) then he will still have serious pressure to reform his government, and given the smart realpolitik kind of guy Assad is, he will very likely make those reforms. And as I said, he's already set a date for elections, and stated that if he wins the elections, it will be his last term as president.

But why did Assad so viciously attack the peaceful protests of two years ago?

 

[NovaKart]

Actually, many of the diplomatic, military and security officials who dictate US behaviour abroad are the same as the 80s. Not that any wise person would buy that argument ('it's 25 years on so they must be different and thus unique in world history!'), but in any case the point is not whether the US is capable of being naughty, but rather that it undermines the idea that use of chemical weapons by Assad would set some dangerous new violation of international 'norms'.

Other earlier violations of such norms:
10 chemical weapons attacks Washington doesn't want you to know

As I've been saying, we shouldn't even be debating this sort of bs, but since many of us plebs take this sort of excuse seriously--seriously enough to let this agenda lead our debate and thought-process--it's worth making these points.

It's not fair to accuse the Obama administration of hypocrisy for the foreign policy decisions of Ronald Reagan, Henry Kissinger and George Bush Sr. I'm well aware of the events of Halabja, I live not far from there and know people from there. If you think diplomatic, security and military officials from the 80s have more authority than President Obama and the US Congress then it's better you back that up with a source.

Among the 10 chemical weapons attacks mentioned in that article, only 2 of them date to the time of the Obama administration and some go back as far as the 40s, if anyone seriously wants to point the finger at the current US government for the atomic bombs at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The 2 events that date from the Obama administration are use of tear gas on US protesters, which Borachio mentions is used in practically every country and does not bear comparison with sarin gas, and white phosphorus used in Israel. Some commenters on the policymic.com page have mentioned that white phosphorus is deployed in different forms and is sometimes used for cover and illumination and that its being referred to as a chemical weapon is dubious.

 

[Azale]

It is indeed about selecting the lesser of two evils.

Which is why I support Bashar Al-Assad in this war against Al-Queda backed militants.

These are not freedom fighters, they are foreign-armed Jihadis who hate everything about us. If Assad falls then they have free reign to do as they please, as does every other ethnic and religious minority in Syria that's just waiting to start killing each other.

Select the lesser of two evils: the strong, secular, slightly-Western in a "we already convinced him to set a date for elections" kind of way. Once his government puts down these rebels (who, by the way, have everything to gain from using chemical weapons, while Assad has nothing to gain, as his conventional forces are already winning the war!) then he will still have serious pressure to reform his government, and given the smart realpolitik kind of guy Assad is, he will very likely make those reforms. And as I said, he's already set a date for elections, and stated that if he wins the elections, it will be his last term as president.

I mostly agree with this but it should be noted that the assorted rebels/militias were making minor headway into the Alawite coastal region.

If you root for Assad you are rooting for a killer and his Russian pals. If you root for the opposition you are rooting for jihadis and their Gulf sheikh pals. There is no reason to "support" anyone imo, especially as a socialist. Imperialism is rampant on both sides.

As a sidebar, Assad has tremendous strategic value to Russia. It's not just about face saving, a few arms deals, and a Mediterranean port. Without Assad, Qatar is likely to build a trans-Middle East pipeline that undercuts Russia's natural gas exports.

Also, I'm linking this article because it is crazy: https://www.nsfwcorp.com/dispatch/putin-saudi-arabia/bb14055ed8698bd6312bbe4f0823f1147cf75c4b/

 

[ReindeerThistle]

^^^^As I said. I am not for or against Assad.

I am against lying and then using those lies as an excuse to bomb.

Sent via mobile.

 

[Traitorfish]

It is indeed about selecting the lesser of two evils.

Which is why I support Bashar Al-Assad in this war against Al-Queda backed militants.

These are not freedom fighters, they are foreign-armed Jihadis who hate everything about us. If Assad falls then they have free reign to do as they please, as does every other ethnic and religious minority in Syria that's just waiting to start killing each other.

Select the lesser of two evils: the strong, secular, slightly-Western in a "we already convinced him to set a date for elections" kind of way. Once his government puts down these rebels (who, by the way, have everything to gain from using chemical weapons, while Assad has nothing to gain, as his conventional forces are already winning the war!) then he will still have serious pressure to reform his government, and given the smart realpolitik kind of guy Assad is, he will very likely make those reforms. And as I said, he's already set a date for elections, and stated that if he wins the elections, it will be his last term as president.

Like how Jim Larkin supported the Allies against the Central Powers, right?

 

[Rashiminos]

Putin now said that Russia will defend Syria in case of foreign attack. I would say thats game over. Waiting on Obama´s speech.

I'm wondering if Putin has been stargazing lately...

 

[DemonicAppleGuY]

I'm simply not convinced that the West would be lying.

By the way, the EU as a whole has now come to the conclusion that the Assad regime is responsible.

 

[Borachio]

No indeed. It does seem likely that Assad is responsible.

It's just that it seemed likely that Saddam Hussein had WMD, too. After all, why would the intelligence agencies lie about it?

 

[ywhtptgtfo]

I'm simply not convinced that the West would be lying.

By the way, the EU as a whole has now come to the conclusion that the Assad regime is responsible.

You are not convinced about the West lying? Come on, the Snowden scandal should've provided a very obvious indication that much of the Western countries are in together for many things

Just recently, it was revealed that the US and the UK compromised the entire internet and hid backdoors in the encryption standards they released to the public. And we also had Germany, Austria, Spain, Portugal, France, and Italy colluding with the US in forcing down the plane carrying the Bolivian president.

Come on. I don't think the US and the EU can be deemed trustworthy after all this.

 

[DemonicAppleGuY]

You are not convinced about the West lying? Come on, the Snowden scandal should've provided a very obvious indication that much of the Western countries are in together for many things

Just recently, it was revealed that the US and the UK compromised the entire internet and hid backdoors in the encryption standards they released to the public. And we also had Germany, Austria, Spain, Portugal, France, and Italy colluding with the US in forcing down the plane carrying the Bolivian president.

Come on. I don't think the US and the EU can be deemed trustworthy after all this.

Just because someone has lied in the past does not mean they always lie.

What motives does the West have to lie?

Not many.

The cost of an intervention for the West would be so much higher than anything gained from it.

 

[Borachio]

The cost of an intervention for the West would be so much higher than anything gained from it.

If this is true, then there's no reason for intervention.

 

[DemonicAppleGuY]

If this is true, then there's no reason for intervention.

If we take the intel as a given though, the cost of not intervening in any way is higher than the cost of intervening in at least a minor way such as missile strikes. The US would want to avoid the loss of credibility.

What reasons does the US have to lie about the intel?

 

[Borachio]

I don't know. What reasons did the US have to lie about Iraq?

 

[Pangur Bán]

It's not fair to accuse the Obama administration of hypocrisy for the foreign policy decisions of Ronald Reagan, Henry Kissinger and George Bush Sr. I'm well aware of the events of Halabja, I live not far from there and know people from there. If you think diplomatic, security and military officials from the 80s have more authority than President Obama and the US Congress then it's better you back that up with a source.

Among the 10 chemical weapons attacks mentioned in that article, only 2 of them date to the time of the Obama administration and some go back as far as the 40s, if anyone seriously wants to point the finger at the current US government for the atomic bombs at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The 2 events that date from the Obama administration are use of tear gas on US protesters, which Borachio mentions is used in practically every country and does not bear comparison with sarin gas, and white phosphorus used in Israel. Some commenters on the policymic.com page have mentioned that white phosphorus is deployed in different forms and is sometimes used for cover and illumination and that its being referred to as a chemical weapon is dubious.

All the bs exception & excuse making aside, the 'Obama administration' is not being accused of hypocrisy because it used chemical weapons, but because it is claiming it wants to stop a dangerous international precedent on chemical weapon use escaping punishment. Even an Assad regime openly wiping out rebel-held cities with chemical weapons would not in fact constitute such a precedent. 'Chemical weapons' is just the latest wooly version of 'weapons of mass destruction', a moralizing, fear-drenched excuse (itself a successor to the 'red menace' type) fed to the US and allied populations to get them to not vigorously oppose, even if they don't actively consent to, deadly political opportunism.