Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 61 to 90 of 90

Thread: Last Syrian Gas Attack

  1. #61
    Okay, I'm trying to wrap my head around this in real time. News reports make it sound like a military strike is a foregone conclusion, it's just a matter of timing and/or going it alone without an allied coalition, international (or possibly US congressional) approval?

    Too many conflicting "goals" being bandied about. While the Humanitarian reason sounds good, it's also a hypocritical cherry-picking that makes me skeptical (regarding outrage over chemical weapons use that went unchallenged in Viet Nam, the 80's, and many times since).

    Where's the chess game analysis of three moves ahead....and how unintended consequences could lead the entire region to literally explode? Where's the butt honest debate about "national interests" that seems like code for warning Iran or Pakistan about their nuclear weapons...or is it really about protecting the 'image' of the US as a military superpower, retaining influence over the region, and/or trying to 'prove' something to Russia ahead of the G-8?

    "War fatigue is no reason to back away from our responsibility", says Sec of State Kerry. Really? Why is it always a US "responsibility" to intervene across the globe....when we're barely out of Iraq and still engaged in Afghanistan? The US has a military presence, with military bases all over the world, and at some point it's either unsustainable or just stupid.


  2. #62
    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post
    That's what I've been asking you to explain! UN inspections can't assign guilt, I get that. There's a difference between treaties and 'customary practices', I get that too. But why do nations' leaders/politicians keep using the term "Law" or "legal" when there's such an ambiguous or subjective definition?
    Because legality has a lot of meaning at the domestic level in Western countries. Western leaders try to gain domestic legitimacy by cloaking their international actions in terms the public will understand. Also, it's less bad to make a bad legal argument for some international action than to make no argument at all.

    That's why I'm confused about the terminology. Why did France say Assad's regime should be held legally and morally accountable? If the legal outline for attacking someone comes from SC....except in cases of self-defense....it seems a manipulation of "self-defense" to justify attacks and bypass the UN. Another example of muddy terminology.
    See above. What Hollande is saying is that Syria should be held morally accountable for what it did, but morality is an ambiguous term, while the French public will understand the concept of legality.

    The most convincing legal argument I've heard on this topic is that by punishing Syria for using WMD, the US might start to bring about an enforcement mechanism in customary international law for those violating the chemical/biological use convention. That doesn't change the legality of the current US actions though.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  3. #63
    Thanks for making the attempt to explain, Loki.

    IMO, Legality shouldn't just be a "concept", with vague or ambiguous definitions like Morality. That's a misuse of, and disservice to, what Law or Legal technically means. It bothers me that western nations claim to honor the "Rule of Law" as a bedrock of democracy, but conflate the terminology for domestic vs international issues. Leaders might be using terms the public will understand, to gain legitimacy and support, but a synonym is "political propaganda".

    Our world's nations and political "agencies" don't reach consensus on terminology, either. As Hazir said, we don't have a "world government". Anyway, no need to continue the rhetorical tangent Let's get back to the immediacy of Syria.....

  4. #64
    Don't forget that our domestic legal system is also one that's based on custom. Many things are legal or illegal based on precedents, not changes in underlying laws.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  5. #65
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Amsterdam/Istanbul
    Posts
    12,312
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    Whether a law exists and whether it's regularly enforced are not the same thing. There are laws against jay-walking in the US, but those laws are very rarely enforced. It doesn't mean that it's legal to jay-walk.

    The more this drags on, the lower the possibility of Assad being replaced by someone reasonable. The more people die, the more radicalized and sectarian the Syrian population will become.
    The law that never is enforced has ceased being a law. Keeping an expired law on the books is actually undermining the legitimacy of other laws still being enforced.

    As for the replacement of Assad, we have long left behind the point where he could be replaced by a reasonable alternative. As things stand now, we can't win anything by getting embroiled in a civil war.
    Congratulations America

  6. #66
    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post
    That's what I've been asking you to explain! UN inspections can't assign guilt, I get that. There's a difference between treaties and 'customary practices', I get that too. But why do nations' leaders/politicians keep using the term "Law" or "legal" when there's such an ambiguous or subjective definition?
    Because none of us have a better short metaphor for what international "law" actually is.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  7. #67
    Rebels Admit Responsibility for Chemical WeaponsAttack |
    Infowars akaDarya

    August 30, 2013 -Rebels Admit Responsibility for Chemical Weapons Attack - Militants tell APreporter they mishandled Saudi-supplied chemical weapons, causing accident



    Syrian rebels in theDamascus suburb of Ghouta have admitted to Associated Press journalist DaleGavlak that they were responsible for last week’s chemical weapons incidentwhich western powers have blamed on Bashar Al-Assad’s forces, revealing thatthe casualties were the result of an accident caused by rebels mishandlingchemical weapons provided to them by Saudi Arabia.

    “From numerousinterviews with doctors, Ghouta residents, rebel fighters and theirfamilies….many believe that certain rebels received chemical weapons via theSaudi intelligence chief, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, and were responsible forcarrying out the (deadly) gas attack,” writes Gavlak.



    Rebels told Gavlakthat they were not properly trained on how to handle the chemical weapons oreven told what they were. It appears as though the weapons were initiallysupposed to be given to the Al-Qaeda offshoot Jabhat al-Nusra.

    http://iranian.com/posts/view/post/19935

  8. #68
    I find it amusing to see Barack Obama and John Kerry being racist Bushitlers and flouting the UN Security Council. HOW DARE THEY. There's a million people marching against this in Berlin and London, right?

    I somewhat admire Obama's new stance of trying to get Congressional authorization to make a military strike. Then again, he's not articulating a policy about when we should be getting authorization for such a strike. When is a military intervention so big it requires authorization? Also, a lot of time is now being wasted that is giving Assad an undoubtable strategic advantage.

    One can't help but wonder if part of Obama wants the Syria vote to fail in Congress so that he can establish a new, less interventionist standard for future presidents who will have to confront a Democratic base pining for the "good old days" when Barack Obama got a vote for every mid- to upper-tier military strike.

  9. #69
    So with Jihadis from all over the Middle-East, including some the US fought in Iraq and probably Afghanistan too, flocking into Syria to fight against the Syrian government -which is propped with costly support from Iran and supported by Hezbollah boots on the ground - a very cynical take on this civil war might find a benefit to the West in a protracted and bloody conflict. Certainly the harm to civillians is appalling, but neither combatant side is a freind to the West now, nor is the victor likely to be a freind to the West going forward. Leaving aside the potential for the war to spread to neighboring allies like Turkey, Jordan or Israel, how horrible is it to contemplate such a thing as beneficial?

    And at Dread - Obama's in a pickle. Clearly he doesn't want to get involved in the war in pretty much any way but after Assad called his bluff he feels like he has too. So if Congress says no, what's a president to do? And if you're right, and he is looking to establish some kind of precedent where Congress goes back to tying the war-making hands of the Executive, this is a good way to do it. A win win I think....
    The Rules
    Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
    Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
    Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)

  10. #70
    You're missing another angle: we're creating another generation of jihadis. It's one thing to have a few thousand roving jihadis and quite another when the civil war creates hundreds of thousands of new jihadis.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  11. #71
    Quote Originally Posted by EyeKhan View Post
    And at Dread - Obama's in a pickle. Clearly he doesn't want to get involved in the war in pretty much any way but after Assad called his bluff he feels like he has too. So if Congress says no, what's a president to do? And if you're right, and he is looking to establish some kind of precedent where Congress goes back to tying the war-making hands of the Executive, this is a good way to do it. A win win I think....
    My problem with that is we already have the War Powers resolution, which authorizes the president to use military force for 60 days before needing to go to Congress. And here we now have Congress authorizing the President to use force for...60 days. Is this exercise really going to change anything?

    I think I prefer the precedent where we don't give dictatorships two weeks notice to move their chemical weapons and other strategic assets.

  12. #72
    The reason for getting Congressional support is that if something goes wrong, Congress shares the blame. On the one hand, it's pretty self-interested. On the other hand, it makes sure that the US is able to do what needs to be done without politics getting too strongly in the way.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  13. #73
    The War Powers Act is only legit for imminent national threats and/or self-defense. That's so POTUS, as Commander in Chief, can order Acts of War in an emergency, prior to congress convening to authorize a Declaration of War. At least that's how I understand its original intent. Am I wrong?

    That's not to say there hasn't been an expansionary creep of that (especially after 9/11) with a fudging of the term "War", that isn't/can't be directed at a particular nation-state in the "War on Terrorism". Isn't that how Bush/Obama administrations were able to use the CIA for covert missions and drone attacks?

  14. #74
    It allows the president to engage in military action that doesn't involve "combat-ready" troops over a period of less than 90 days. Even if the president does send "combat-ready" troops, he only has to notify Congress, not obtain its permission. Only after 90 days does Congress have the ability to abort the mission by refusing to fund it (which it would rarely do in practice).
    Hope is the denial of reality

  15. #75
    I notice you didn't use the term "War" anywhere in that post.

    There's a paradoxical dilemma here, with Obama/Kerry/Hagel saying this is not War. Not in the 'traditional' sense of War. But Joint Chief Dempsey said this would be an Act of War, the UNSC head honcho basically agreed....and many in congress see it the same way. War. Technically, constitutionally, only congress can declare, approve, or fund War. Correct?

  16. #76
    War has various legal implications that everyone tries to avoid. I can't really think of any declarations of war from any country since WWII, though I suppose there might have been 1 or 2.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  17. #77
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    War has various legal implications that everyone tries to avoid. I can't really think of any declarations of war from any country since WWII, though I suppose there might have been 1 or 2.
    Did the US officially declare Viet Nam a War, since the draft was instituted? (I don't really remember the details.) Anyway, don't you think it's about time we reined in the definitions and "legal" implications of War...since we've already been engaged in two simultaneously, that's dragged on for over ten years?

  18. #78
    The US hasn't declared war since WWII.

    Technically speaking, we're not involved in any wars right now. We're on the side of the government in both Iraq and Afghanistan.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  19. #79
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    The US hasn't declared war since WWII.

    Technically speaking, we're not involved in any wars right now. We're on the side of the government in both Iraq and Afghanistan.
    I think that's a symptom of a larger, more complicated problem that we should tackle. Veterans from Korea and Viet Nam would definitely say they fought in Wars. Any soldier deployed from Desert Storm to today would say the same thing...as does the DoD, VA, VFW, and Arlington cemetery. No one's fooled by the terminology gymnastics, or technical loopholes. We've been at War or in War, several times since WWII. After 9/11, we 'declared' a War on Terrorism....a perpetual state of War...in perpetuity?

  20. #80
    No, it's a "problem" that you weren't aware of until now and certainly not an issue that needs urgent addressing.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  21. #81
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Amsterdam/Istanbul
    Posts
    12,312
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    The US hasn't declared war since WWII.

    Technically speaking, we're not involved in any wars right now. We're on the side of the government in both Iraq and Afghanistan.
    That wasn't the case at the beginning of the two wars you refer to. Attacks on Syria will also inevitably lead to the conclusion that you are at war. Can't really tell with who, because Syria itself is already in a state of civil war.
    Congratulations America

  22. #82
    In the interstate component of both wars, we did quite well. We overthrew both regimes in record amount of time with minimal casualties.

    What practical difference will it make? And once again, I think you're overestimating the effect of limited strikes.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  23. #83
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Amsterdam/Istanbul
    Posts
    12,312
    I am not overestimating the effect; the single effect is that it makes the US and whoever is stupid enough to join in the strikes a party in what is a civil war in the now defunct state of Syria.
    Congratulations America

  24. #84
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    No, it's a "problem" that you weren't aware of until now and certainly not an issue that needs urgent addressing.
    It's been a "problem" actively debated (even on this forum) since 9/11, mostly in the context of executive and legislative powers...and the decision process behind military 'engagement'. If you've forgotten the arguments about whether the Iraq War was legitimate or constitutional, and congressional voting records being used in debates to compare policies and philosophies, your memory is damn selective.

    Is it just semantics? Legislators got stung by Sequester mandates, and worried about military budget cuts and furloughs during "War"...since we're not technically in a state of "War". They've had problems paying and budgeting for our expanding military 'engagements', because they don't fall under a title of "War Spending" or "War Budget". There have been suggestions of enacting a "War Tax" any time we send troops to 'engage' in a conflict, so funding is transparent to tax payers...and costs of "War" isn't hidden in spread sheets.

  25. #85
    Quote Originally Posted by Hazir View Post
    I am not overestimating the effect; the single effect is that it makes the US and whoever is stupid enough to join in the strikes a party in what is a civil war in the now defunct state of Syria.
    We're already a party to the civil war.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  26. #86
    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post
    Did the US officially declare Viet Nam a War, since the draft was instituted? (I don't really remember the details.)
    No. The draft had been active since 1948. Congress and the President kept it active because it encouraged voluntary enlistment.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  27. #87
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Amsterdam/Istanbul
    Posts
    12,312
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    We're already a party to the civil war.
    I am not aware of the US sending arms of aid directly to any of the sides in that civil war.
    Congratulations America

  28. #88
    We send intelligence and non-lethal equipment to the rebels (non-lethal to the extent that it can't directly be used to kill soldiers, which is not to say that it doesn't help the rebels accomplish that objective).
    Hope is the denial of reality

  29. #89

    “WMD”, “DICTATOR”, “RED LINE”…. HE always find an excuse to slaughter.

    The name "Egypt" should be changed with Iran. Egypt military isUS puppet. Nothing happens when they slaughtered 3 thousands people.

  30. #90
    Former Bush and Clinton Administration Insider –Nobody is Asking the Basic Question

    “The Russians andthe Chinese have people on the ground. They didn’t pull their diplomats out.They didn’t pull their people out of Syria. They went to the last chemicalweapons attack site in March. They did forensics on the ground themselves. Theyfound two striking things that have not been covered in the press here at all.One was that the rockets used to deliver those chemicals were homemade rockets,not military, not industrial produced. The other thing they found was the sarinthere was not military produced. They didn’t use stabilizers. Maybe this istotally different. Maybe this time Assad said, ‘I’m winning on the battlefield,so I’m going to send chemical weapons in for the fun of it’. Maybe the Russianshave a point. Here Obama is going to go to Russia, and we think he’s not goingto hear an earful? The rest of the world does not believe what we’re saying forgood reason. We made it up last time,” said Mann Leverett.

    http://counterpsyops.com/2013/09/11/...asic-question/

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •