Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
it is geo-politics, it is about furthering the interests of US and its allies.
Absolutely. National self-interest is often unattractive, but at least it's honest. I remember seeing a TV interview with a Republic senator prior to the invasion of Iraq, he said words to the effect "Of course it's about oil."...I found his honesty refreshing.
Surely this needs checking before anyone concludes that Assad was indeed behind the attacks. EDIT: by checking, I mean both the information and the credibility of the source, but if indeed it comes from an AP reporter then that merits a close look.
i think its a society beginning to struggle for freedom...democracy.
I think there are all sorts of interests on the rebel side, I don't think there is any concensus about wanting democracy.
Nope that's why I wAs very careful in choosing my words here. Actually a post revolution Syria is probably going to be even more tumultuous than egypt is right now. Still its pretty clear that there was a youth movement in syria that desires a more open society...and that relatively peaceful movement was brutally repressed. Its regime behavior like that catalyzes violent chaotic uprisings.
I think there's also a degree of belief that it's a slippery slope from chemical to biological, and biological agents are terribly uncontrollable when released.
Didn't the US use chemical weapons in Vietnam?
In my opinion the answer is yes (e.g., agent orange). Which does nothing to detract the validity of my statement.
Was gone all day hanging out with the family but came home to see that Obama will seek Congressional approval after that adjourn Sept 9th before making a decision on Syria. So that is good. I'm glad he kept his word on that.
Was gone all day hanging out with the family but came home to see that Obama will seek Congressional approval after that adjourn Sept 9th before making a decision on Syria. So that is good.
Was he following David Cameron's lead in seeking approval from the legislature?
I think there's also a degree of belief that it's a slippery slope from chemical to biological, and biological agents are terribly uncontrollable when released.
Didn't the US use chemical weapons in Vietnam?
In my opinion the answer is yes (e.g., agent orange). Which does nothing to detract the validity of my statement.
The problem I see is that it looks like a case of "do what I say, not what I do". And if we're talking about slippery slopes, then arguably the worst WMDs are nuclear weapons - but that's a difficult area too for the US.
I think there's also a degree of belief that it's a slippery slope from chemical to biological, and biological agents are terribly uncontrollable when released.
Didn't the US use chemical weapons in Vietnam?
In my opinion the answer is yes (e.g., agent orange). Which does nothing to detract the validity of my statement.
The problem I see is that it looks like a case of "do what I say, not what I do". And if we're talking about slippery slopes, then arguably the worst WMDs are nuclear weapons - but that's a difficult area too for the US.
An accurate statement that is non-biased would be that "that's a difficult area for 9 nations" (not to mention a number of nations that are attempting or have attempted to join the nuclear club).
@SpinyNorman I don't know why Obama decided to seek approval. He really is supposed to anyhow, and Congress and the American people were calling for it strongly, so, I suspect it had more to do with the US than what Cameron did.
I honestly don't know what the chances are that it'll be approved. I wonder how many people are writing their congressmen and senators to express their opinion, and how much that will matter in their vote.
what are the chances that congress will approve attacks on syria? imo, zero.
The 5 ways that Congress is splitting on Syria : http://wapo.st/17suGhl its been a long long time since I've seen congress actually have such a diversity of opinion that wasnt strictly party Line politics. tea party and extreme left wing teaming up against a bipartisan centrist bloc? Republicans telling the pres to use his authority without their approval? Wow talk about chaos.. this is like...stuff I wouldn't have expected to see in the house unless the world was ending or something. Cats and dogs living together, total anarchym.youtube.com/watch?v=JmzuRXLzqKk&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DJmzuRXLzqKk
you don't really feel that way do you? It was somewhere around 900,000 men women children, most innocent. Literally hell on earth. I wouldn't be able to sleep at night if I had the ability to stop it and did nothing.
Well it appears LOTS of people were during the Holocaust. People had no problems sleeping soundly at night while the Nazis killed 6 _MILLION_ Jews as well as thousand of Roma Gypsies, homosexuals and sympathises and resistance. It's all well and good to say that @oceancaldera207 because the likelyhood of you being in that situation is more remote than winning the lottery.
Now with Syria, history is repeating itself, the world needs to re-learn to take sides and do something about it.
Actually Lee, I don't think that's the right thing at all. Taking sides is the reason we've had any war in the history of mankind. Look at post 9/11 for example. When the USA led troops into Afghanistan, they were welcomed as heros and thanked for their efforts. Now, they are targets of rage. USA, UK and Australia have lost far too many men and women because they went to the aid of a country who now treats them like dirt. As far as I'm concerned, they can go it alone in regards to military intervention. Let the UN get involved, REALLY involved, instead of Ban Ki Moon giving speeches amounting to "You're being naughty and need to stop"
you don't really feel that way do you? It was somewhere around 900,000 men women children, most innocent. Literally hell on earth. I wouldn't be able to sleep at night if I had the ability to stop it and did nothing.
Well it appears LOTS of people were during the Holocaust. People had no problems sleeping soundly at night while the Nazis killed 6 _MILLION_ Jews as well as thousand of Roma Gypsies, homosexuals and sympathises and resistance. It's all well and good to say that @oceancaldera207 because the likelyhood of you being in that situation is more remote than winning the lottery.
what are the chances that congress will approve attacks on syria? imo, zero.
The 5 ways that Congress is splitting on Syria : http://wapo.st/17suGhl its been a long long time since I've seen congress actually have such a diversity of opinion that wasnt strictly party Line politics. tea party and extreme left wing teaming up against a bipartisan centrist bloc? Republicans telling the pres to use his authority without their approval? Wow talk about chaos.. this is like...stuff I wouldn't have expected to see in the house unless the world was ending or something. Cats and dogs living together, total anarchym.youtube.com/watch?v=JmzuRXLzqKk&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DJmzuRXLzqKk
Perhaps not anarchy at all but something else. The same happened in the British Parliament there was a consensus of all shades of the political spectrum. Right wing Conservatives allied to Socialists. One experienced commentator from the BBC ( Nick Robinson ) thinks he has sensed a major shift in these issues, he thinks that the era of western interventions into the domestic affairs of other Nation states has gone for good. And that will have consequences both ways...positive and negative. The West he thinks , will raise the drawbridge. And it will stay raised for a generation.
I think there's also a degree of belief that it's a slippery slope from chemical to biological, and biological agents are terribly uncontrollable when released.
Didn't the US use chemical weapons in Vietnam?
In my opinion the answer is yes (e.g., agent orange). Which does nothing to detract the validity of my statement.
The problem I see is that it looks like a case of "do what I say, not what I do". And if we're talking about slippery slopes, then arguably the worst WMDs are nuclear weapons - but that's a difficult area too for the US.
An accurate statement that is non-biased would be that "that's a difficult area for 9 nations" (not to mention a number of nations that are attempting or have attempted to join the nuclear club).
Sure, but the US is the only nation which has actually used nuclear weapons.
I think there's also a degree of belief that it's a slippery slope from chemical to biological, and biological agents are terribly uncontrollable when released.
Didn't the US use chemical weapons in Vietnam?
In my opinion the answer is yes (e.g., agent orange). Which does nothing to detract the validity of my statement.
The problem I see is that it looks like a case of "do what I say, not what I do". And if we're talking about slippery slopes, then arguably the worst WMDs are nuclear weapons - but that's a difficult area too for the US.
An accurate statement that is non-biased would be that "that's a difficult area for 9 nations" (not to mention a number of nations that are attempting or have attempted to join the nuclear club).
Sure, but the US is the only nation which has actually used nuclear weapons.
Have you seen the interview of one of the 3 pilots to drop the bomb on Hiroshima? He doesn't seem to have any remorse at all and said he would do it again if he had to. Also he said when they were in the plane and dropped the bomb, all they cared about at that time is that it worked! Man that guy has clocked up some serious karma.
The West he thinks , will raise the drawbridge. And it will stay raised for a generation.
It wouldn't surprise me. They say that Iraq has cast a long shadow, it seems like a lot of people have lost trust in their governments when it comes to intervention in foreign wars. I'm not sure what's happening with France, though, they seem quite keen on intervention, it seems at odds with their stance on Iraq?
@SpinyNorman I don't know why Obama decided to seek approval. He really is supposed to anyhow, and Congress and the American people were calling for it strongly, so, I suspect it had more to do with the US than what Cameron did.
Did they get Congress approval for Iraq? I don't know.
you don't really feel that way do you? It was somewhere around 900,000 men women children, most innocent. Literally hell on earth. I wouldn't be able to sleep at night if I had the ability to stop it and did nothing.
I think in Rwanda there should have been an intervention, and it's horrible there was none. There were UN troops in the country at the time that were not allowed to intervene in the slaughter, which is horrible. However, in any case, it seems obvious to me that the first people to consult are the military experts. If they say that intervention will surely just make things worse, then that should basically rule out this option.
But what I think is fundamental to this discussion, something that @Karasti mentioned, is our general intention of helping (or at least not harming) other people. Instead of raising people out of poverty, we are pushing people into poverty by greedy free trade policies, (I say greedy, because if the western world would just redistribute their wealth a little better, there would be no need at all to expand our markets) and co-operation with dictators to exploit natural resources. If these trade policies are the basis of our actions, then misery (e.g. selling arms to dictators in explosive regions) follows like a wheel follows the hoof of the ox.
The West he thinks , will raise the drawbridge. And it will stay raised for a generation.
It wouldn't surprise me. They say that Iraq has cast a long shadow, it seems like a lot of people have lost trust in their governments when it comes to intervention in foreign wars. I'm not sure what's happening with France, though, they seem quite keen on intervention, it seems at odds with their stance on Iraq?
Reports today of a poll among French voters apparently shows a majority are against intervention. Here in the UK polls are showing a big majority against. Yes the Iraq factor is important here. The British people were lied to. But there may also be a deeper shift...A growing realisation that the west cannot continue to police the world. Time for someone else to take up cudgels.
But there may also be a deeper shift...A growing realisation that the west cannot continue to police the world.
Yes, and also perhaps that it shouldn't continue to police the world. It seems that this "policing" work often has unintended consequences. I remember UK politicians trying to justify our involvement in Afghanistan by saying it also made the UK safer. And yet the London 7/7 bombers were "home-grown", and apparently radicalised by UK involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan. I missed one of the tube bombs by 24 hours, so it's something I've thought about quite a lot.
The West hes , will rsyrian the drawbridge. And it will stay raised for a generation.
It wouldn't surprise me. They say that Iraq has cast a long shadow, it seems like a lot of people have lost trust in their governments when it comes to intervention in foreign wars. .. Time for someone else to take up cudgels.
But do they know that the rebels have been begging for help from the west from the start? Do they know that the rebel army is mostly defected syrian military and regular civilians who took up arms after brutal crackdowns on protests by Assad? Do they understand that tens of thousands if refugees in Turkey and Jordan are still begging us to intervene? Why can't anyone see that it's different? I saw pictures of the kids fighting assads forces in aleppo.. 18, 19, 20 yr olds, look like college kids for christ sake, a lot of em were!
Yes, and also perhaps that it shouldn't continue to police the world. It seems that this "policing" work often has unintended consequences.
And that's sad that the Iraq debacle has become what it has... Because make no mistake: there are situations where we can and should get involved... and not so much for national interest reasons, but for moral reasons
However, in any case, it seems obvious to me that the first people to consult are the military experts. If they say that intervention will surely just make things worse, then that should basically rule out this option.
Can't argue with this. Honestly, we should have just imposed a no fly zone a year ago when the rebels begged for it. That way the playing field would have been equalized and they could have settled it for themselves. Had we done that, this whole thing would have been over by now. I was shaking my head back then wondering why we didn't... Now we are left with such fewer options.
There are reasons, as I understand, that a no fly zone wasn't instituted. Part of it is the cost and the risk of getting sucked into a long time commitment. The other part of it is that most of the atrocities that have happened, have happened on the ground. A no fly zone doesn't do much to stop kidnappings, mass rapes, and so on. I just think that what we armchair presidents think is the best and most obvious thing to do, just isn't always the case. There are things, probably many things, that have to be considered that we don't even know about. If you were a military strategist with loads of knowledge on Syria and everyone involved, then I might take it more seriously when you ask why we don't do what you wish we would do.
Remember when we helped in Afghanistan and then the Taliban took over 5 or so years later and then the Taliban planned and executed the attack on 9/11? We were responsible for them rising to power. We risk it again in this situation because of what the rebel camp is made up of.
@SpinyNorman Bush had Congressional approval to go to war in Iraq.
The mess is unsolvable, especially when governments sell arms and chemicals to the bad guys all the time (as @maarten indicated and i think a few others). The cycle is endless as @karasti stated and I don't believe the human race will ever break this cycle. The Brits sold chemicals to Asaad 10 months after the conflict started: http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/revealed-britain-sold-nerve-gas-2242520 Why is anyone selling any kind of ingredients for chemical warfare to anyone? Why isn't anyone policing this? Does this make Britain inadvertantly responsible for the chemical attacks in Syria? Wouldn't then Britain be responsible to resolve the issue of the use of the chemical weapons by Asaad? (I am not picking on the Brits, just making a point cuz I am sure Asaad is also using US weaponry.) Is this why the West feels they must "police" the world - because they are somewhat accountable for the mess they created? Unfortunately political/corp self-interest is the guiding factor for all decision making - not humane based factors.
I think there's also a degree of belief that it's a slippery slope from chemical to biological, and biological agents are terribly uncontrollable when released.
Didn't the US use chemical weapons in Vietnam?
In my opinion the answer is yes (e.g., agent orange). Which does nothing to detract the validity of my statement.
The problem I see is that it looks like a case of "do what I say, not what I do". And if we're talking about slippery slopes, then arguably the worst WMDs are nuclear weapons - but that's a difficult area too for the US.
An accurate statement that is non-biased would be that "that's a difficult area for 9 nations" (not to mention a number of nations that are attempting or have attempted to join the nuclear club).
Sure, but the US is the only nation which has actually used nuclear weapons.
Yup, and under rather extraordinary circumstances.
...if the western world would just redistribute their wealth a little better, there would be no need at all to expand our markets) and co-operation with dictators to exploit natural resources. If these trade policies are the basis of our actions, then misery (e.g. selling arms to dictators in explosive regions) follows like a wheel follows the hoof of the ox.
While there are some specific areas that have a deficit of natural resources, that really doesn't seem to be an issue in international wealth or poverty, in general. Africa is probably the continent with the most natural resources, yet, in general, it's the poorest continent. How about if we hold the Africans responsible for their own poverty, instead of blaming it on others. They've had a longer time to get their act together. But for much of their history they've decided to fight petty tribal wars over and over instead of having a real concern for their own people. And while it was wrong, no wonder European nations took advantage of the weaknesses and decided to own African nations.
... Reports today of a poll among French voters apparently shows a majority are against intervention. Here in the UK polls are showing a big majority against. Yes the Iraq factor is important here. The British people were lied to. But there may also be a deeper shift...A growing realisation that the west cannot continue to police the world. Time for someone else to take up cudgels.
Just 2 things to think about.
1. What would your locality and your country be like if there were no police?
2. A majority of Americans once accepted the concept of slavery. Therefore slavery is good and shouldn't have been ended. A majority of American accepted placing Japanese-Americans in camps during WWII. Therefore, the internment camps were right. A majority of Americans accepted the post-Civil War to pre-civil rights era status of "Negroes" (to use the language of the time). Therefore, Blacks being held down was right.
here are reasons, as I understand, that a no fly zone wasn't instituted. Part of it is the cost and the risk of getting sucked into a long time commitment. The other part of it is that most of the atrocities that have happened, have happenemn the ground. A no fly zone doesn't do much to stop kidnappings, mass rapes, and so on. I just think that what we armchair presidents think is the best ..
The no fly zone would have hastened the end of the conflict. I think it would have been the most reasonable way for the western powers to get involved. I'm sure the western powers that be would have done so, if not for the tyrant putin and his cronies making a fortune selling arms to assad. But yeah I think there were also logistical problems with it.
. Africa is probably the continent with the most natural resources, yet, in general, it's the poorest continent. How about if we hold the Africans responsible for their own poverty, instead of blaming it on others. They've had a longer time to get their act together. But for much of their history they've decided to fight petty tribal wars over and over instead of having a real concern for their own people. And while it was wrong, no wonder European nations took advantage of the weaknesses and decided to own African nations.
I've often wondered if their is national karma.
They should try putting women in charge for a change.
Comments
so PLEASE put your name and address where your mouth is (err... or fingers are) and sign the petition:
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/pledge-there-will-be-no-american-military-intervention-syria/BqrM8b42
http://www.infowars.com/rebels-admit-responsibility-for-chemical-weapons-attack/
http://www.mintpressnews.com/witnesses-of-gas-attack-say-saudis-supplied-rebels-with-chemical-weapons/168135/
Surely this needs checking before anyone concludes that Assad was indeed behind the attacks.
EDIT: by checking, I mean both the information and the credibility of the source, but if indeed it comes from an AP reporter then that merits a close look.
approve attacks on syria?
imo, zero.
I honestly don't know what the chances are that it'll be approved. I wonder how many people are writing their congressmen and senators to express their opinion, and how much that will matter in their vote.
its been a long long time since I've seen congress actually have such a diversity of opinion that wasnt strictly party Line politics. tea party and extreme left wing teaming up against a bipartisan centrist bloc? Republicans telling the pres to use his authority without their approval? Wow talk about chaos.. this is like...stuff I wouldn't have expected to see in the house unless the world was ending or something. Cats and dogs living together, total anarchym.youtube.com/watch?v=JmzuRXLzqKk&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DJmzuRXLzqKk
I don't.....
The same happened in the British Parliament there was a consensus of all shades of the political spectrum. Right wing Conservatives allied to Socialists.
One experienced commentator from the BBC ( Nick Robinson ) thinks he has sensed a major shift in these issues, he thinks that the era of western interventions into the domestic affairs of other Nation states has gone for good. And that will have consequences both ways...positive and negative.
The West he thinks , will raise the drawbridge. And it will stay raised for a generation.
"Syria declares US 'retreat'
Sun, 1 Sep 13
Syria hails US 'retreat' "
However, in any case, it seems obvious to me that the first people to consult are the military experts. If they say that intervention will surely just make things worse, then that should basically rule out this option.
But what I think is fundamental to this discussion, something that @Karasti mentioned, is our general intention of helping (or at least not harming) other people. Instead of raising people out of poverty, we are pushing people into poverty by greedy free trade policies, (I say greedy, because if the western world would just redistribute their wealth a little better, there would be no need at all to expand our markets) and co-operation with dictators to exploit natural resources. If these trade policies are the basis of our actions, then misery (e.g. selling arms to dictators in explosive regions) follows like a wheel follows the hoof of the ox.
Yes the Iraq factor is important here.
The British people were lied to.
But there may also be a deeper shift...A growing realisation that the west cannot continue to police the world. Time for someone else to take up cudgels.
anyway, watch this video, guardian interviews with Jordanian anti intervention protestors and later Syrian refugee in a Jordanian displacement camp. I think it says it all for both sides really. theguardian.com/world/video/2013/aug/30/jordanian-reaction-syria-intervention-video
Honestly, we should have just imposed a no fly zone a year ago when the rebels begged for it. That way the playing field would have been equalized and they could have settled it for themselves. Had we done that, this whole thing would have been over by now. I was shaking my head back then wondering why we didn't... Now we are left with such fewer options.
Remember when we helped in Afghanistan and then the Taliban took over 5 or so years later and then the Taliban planned and executed the attack on 9/11? We were responsible for them rising to power. We risk it again in this situation because of what the rebel camp is made up of.
@SpinyNorman Bush had Congressional approval to go to war in Iraq.
The Brits sold chemicals to Asaad 10 months after the conflict started:
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/revealed-britain-sold-nerve-gas-2242520
Why is anyone selling any kind of ingredients for chemical warfare to anyone?
Why isn't anyone policing this?
Does this make Britain inadvertantly responsible for the chemical attacks in Syria?
Wouldn't then Britain be responsible to resolve the issue of the use of the chemical weapons by Asaad?
(I am not picking on the Brits, just making a point cuz I am sure Asaad is also using US weaponry.)
Is this why the West feels they must "police" the world - because they are somewhat accountable for the mess they created?
Unfortunately political/corp self-interest is the guiding factor for all decision making - not humane based factors.
petition to not bomb
I've often wondered if their is national karma.
1. What would your locality and your country be like if there were no police?
2. A majority of Americans once accepted the concept of slavery. Therefore slavery is good and shouldn't have been ended. A majority of American accepted placing Japanese-Americans in camps during WWII. Therefore, the internment camps were right. A majority of Americans accepted the post-Civil War to pre-civil rights era status of "Negroes" (to use the language of the time). Therefore, Blacks being held down was right.
@vinlyn Ever seen mad max? :pirate:
This is what responisble foreign policy looks like...its just been a while since we've seen it.
“The world will not be destroyed by those who do evil, but by those who watch them without doing anything” -Albert Einstein