Americans Say "No" To U.S. Involvement in Syria- Despite Chemical Weapons Used by Government

[JayHawk]

Another essential reader

There are multiple informative links about all aspects of the situation. I know you all dont need me to read the news to you but thought you might like the links

 

[Telstra]

An interesting read that is both long and well written. Brought to my attention by a previous mod who may have posted it here himself had he not abdicated his moderation throne.

Seriously, both those in support of and those against action will learn from this piece. After a bit of background the best thing we can do is feed the hungry masses. Then let them sort out their own issues.

Your Labor Day Syria Reader, Part 2: William Polk

wow, i only read a part of it.
The rebels might be the one who used chemical weapons.
If so, why do the US and the West support the terrorists?

If this is true, the media's headline should be:
USA supports terror ...

 

[T-Rexx]

I don't understand where any of your statement comes from. How did you read that from what I said? Is this meant to try and instigate me by trying to make me into some sort of cultural or ethnic bigot?

ChickenGuy said:

And this is maybe the most fundamental point. That you don't believe Western civilisation has evolved and grown into anything more humanist and progressive as the medieval-style African/Arabic warlords and murderers.

To which I responded:

...why do you imagine we have "evolved" culturally further than Africans and Arabs? Much of what we are, we are because of them.

To which you responded:

A frequent refrain from you with nothing to back it up. Not only can you not show that the US would target Syrians, but now you are accusing people of reveling in the idea of it.

I said I don't understand the complaint. So far as I can recall, I have never before objected to anyone here claiming that western civilization is superior to Arab or African civilization. But you claim that is a "frequent refrain" of mine.

So far as I can tell, your post has nothing to do with the original exchange. What does the US attacking Syria have to do with the "evolution" of various civilizations?

So, I still don't understand your complaint. And I ask again, are your trying to agree with ChickenGuy that western civilization is superior to Arab and African civilization?

 

[T-Rexx]

n that part of the world, it's hard to say if there are strikes that are successful with few to no civilian casualties since there are never any reliable numbers ever released. However, Israel has conducted several strikes against Syrian military targets with little to no civilian casualties. One such strike is Opertion Orchard which destroyed the undeclared nuclear facility that was destroyed by Israeli aircraft. While there were no confirmed reports of deaths, it is alleged that up to 10 North Korean nuclear scientists may have been killed. That is much less than the thousands you are claiming will be killed.

Ummm... ...I guess you missed it, but your link claims that civilians were killed.

I think you just provided evidence of the opposite of your claim that cruise missiles don't kill people.

Interesting, according to the Geneva Conventions, detention of prisoners of war can last until the end of the conflict. Thus, I don't consider indefinite detention without trial torture.

So, you do not consider imprisonment forever without charge or trial to be a violation of human rights.

Not quite correct. Here is a link to some more information.

Again, your own link says nothing about those countries supporting a US attack on Syria.

And, in fact, a simple Google search will prove that almost all of them object (in many cases, quite strenuously) to such an approach.

Why are you trying to twist the meaning of statements to the opposite of what they say? Are you a Republican?

Indeed we were, but war isn't generally won out of anger. It is one out of strategy, intelligence, and superior firepower. We dropped the nuclear bombs on Japan because they were powerful weapons and it was a much wiser and quicker strategy than attempt a ground invasion of Japan. And again, while it did win the war, it exposed the vast devastation that these weapons have caused and the US has been against using them since.

The claim is that the USA is the only nation ever to have used nuclear weapons in anger against another country. A claim with which you say you disagree.

I mean you no disrespect, tigerfan, but it is no fun to "debate" with someone who claims that cruise missiles don't kill people, that imprisonment of people forever without charge or trial is not a violation of human rights, and that the US nuking of Japan was done in friendship and not anger.

Please understand if I choose not to respond to your posts in future.

 

[JayHawk]

wow, i only read a part of it.
The rebels might be the one who used chemical weapons.
If so, why do the US and the West support the terrorists?

If this is true, the media's headline should be:
USA supports terror ...

I would suggest reading all of it so as not to assume an ignorant position. The article does not make the weak assumption you have but provides multiple scenarios, all of which are entirely unproven to date.

 

[Kulindahr]

I mean you no disrespect, tigerfan, but it is no fun to "debate" with someone who claims that cruise missiles don't kill people, that imprisonment of people forever without charge or trial is not a violation of human rights, and that the US nuking of Japan was done in friendship and not anger.

Please understand if I choose not to respond to your posts in future.

He doesn't believe there is such a thing as human rights -- just privileges granted by governments. So he ends up in the position that whatever the law says is pure and holy, the ultimate statement of morals.


BTW, I don't see that the "US nuking of Japan" was done in either friendship or in anger.

 

[Kulindahr]

I would suggest reading all of it so as not to assume an ignorant position. The article does not make the weak assumption you have but provides multiple scenarios, all of which are entirely unproven to date.

But it's pretty clear from the article that the belief that the government did it is unlikely on any account.

 

[Telstra]

I would suggest reading all of it so as not to assume an ignorant position. The article does not make the weak assumption you have but provides multiple scenarios, all of which are entirely unproven to date.

But it is still quite clear that the US supports the terrorists side rather than Assad side.
The headline "USA supports terror" still quite true.

 

[Kulindahr]

But it is still quite clear that the US supports the terrorists side rather than Assad side.
The headline "USA supports terror" still quite true.

THAT isn't "clear" at all. You're making a false dichotomy: the US favors some of the rebels over Assad, but not any terrorists. The real problem right ow is that if Assad topples, odds are it will be terrorists who take over.

And that's the astonishing thing to me: Obama made it clear he doesn't want chemical weapons in the wrong hands. I presume he believes that Al-Qaeda and their Islamist competition would be the wrong hands, but if the US strikes at Assad in any way, they're the ones most likely to get their hands on those weapons. So if he insists on blowing things and people up, and wants to make a point about using chemical weapons, he should strike everyone who might have used them, in equal fashion so as not to change the balance of the situation.

Which is why I say any military action is foolish. Blow up the water main to Assad's palace, dump pork fat on Al-Qaeda's positions, do anything but tip the balance in a direction that could mean sarin gas in Paris and New York.

 

[JayHawk]

But it's pretty clear from the article that the belief that the government did it is unlikely on any account.

True, from what he has presented. The main crux of that is verbal or rather 'word of mouth' reports that the delivery rockets looked homemade coupled with a lack of clear purpose in the Assad government employing the weapons. Still not very clear.

If Telstra had half of a desire to be anything other than provocative then he would acknowledge that the western world pretty solidly agrees Assad employed the weapons, but as usual they are not committed enough to actually do anything about it. Honestly it does seem a losing proposition either way it goes.

Our oil prices wont change much. Let them kill themselves until the regional violence reaches a point that they start attacking our allies in the region and then we can justifiably launch plenty of missiles.

 

[Kulindahr]

True, from what he has presented. The main crux of that is verbal or rather 'word of mouth' reports that the delivery rockets looked homemade coupled with a lack of clear purpose in the Assad government employing the weapons. Still not very clear.

If Telstra had half of a desire to be anything other than provocative then he would acknowledge that the western world pretty solidly agrees Assad employed the weapons, but as usual they are not committed enough to actually do anything about it. Honestly it does seem a losing proposition either way it goes.

Our oil prices wont change much. Let them kill themselves until the regional violence reaches a point that they start attacking our allies in the region and then we can justifiably launch plenty of missiles.

None of the parties are that foolish. If they thought they could make the blame stick on Assad, the terrorists and Islamists would do it in a minute... which maybe is what's happening now -- I still don't see any motive for Assad to have done this, though OTOH the younger brother isn't all that brilliant, so maybe....


Time for a leak from the White House that Obama is considering supporting the Kurds in seceding from Syria, to reduce the extent of the thing....

 

[Sausy]

None of the parties are that foolish. If they thought they could make the blame stick on Assad, the terrorists and Islamists would do it in a minute... which maybe is what's happening now -- I still don't see any motive for Assad to have done this, though OTOH the younger brother isn't all that brilliant, so maybe....


Time for a leak from the White House that Obama is considering supporting the Kurds in seceding from Syria, to reduce the extent of the thing....

That would go over pretty badly, with the large Kurdish populations in nearby Turkey and Iraq. Figuratively at least, doing anything in that region is akin to walking on a road littered with landmines... one false step, and kaboom!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Sausy]

Read the first linked report by James Polk, and it's sober, thoughtful and as good a reason to forget the whole nonsense of "limited" responses. While not conclusive that the Assad regime had nothing to do with the recent chemical weapon attack certainly painted a strong picture of keeping in mind grave reservations about what we have been told and led to believe. I am kind of curious about how getting rid of Assad's regime would benefit Israel, despite what it appears the hard liners of the Mossad and Israeli leadership may believe( and I am speaking as one usually friendly to Israel). Assad is an unapologetic foe of Israel and closely allied with the Israel hating theocrats in Iran, but the only organized, disciplined force among the rebels are Sunni Islamic extremists affiliated or sympathetic to al-Qaeda or Muslim Brotherhood... also deadly enemies of Israel, and deeply fanatical and motivated. With Syria collapsing due to economic chaos due to severe drought, it's a ticking time bomb and we will own the responsibility to keep order if we cause the government to fall and the country divided into dangerous, brutal fiefdoms. Wherever the responsibility lies in who ordered the chemical attack, it is essential we do NOT get involved militarily and almost certainly make a grave situation exponentially worse.

This is what I don't understand about President Obama... as James Folk points out from one of the president's speeches that no matter the visceral emotional response to horrors we should not try to act militarily, so often it can cause things to escalate dangerously. The president preaches caution, a reluctance to simply go out and do something militarily and risk being caught again in a terrible cycle of war but seems to be hell bent on pursuing just that course. It looks bleak enough for Syria, so many displaced already by drought, famine and brutalities of civil war. We cannot help merely by doing something, sending a "message" or a "shot across the bow" to the Assad regime. We will instead be pouring gasoline on a raging fire, and the result will be catastrophic.

You're right, Mr. President.... Syria is not Iraq... it will be worse, maybe MUCH worse.

 

[tigerfan482]

ChickenGuy said:



To which I responded:



To which you responded:



I said I don't understand the complaint. So far as I can recall, I have never before objected to anyone here claiming that western civilization is superior to Arab or African civilization. But you claim that is a "frequent refrain" of mine.

So far as I can tell, your post has nothing to do with the original exchange. What does the US attacking Syria have to do with the "evolution" of various civilizations?

So, I still don't understand your complaint. And I ask again, are your trying to agree with ChickenGuy that western civilization is superior to Arab and African civilization?

There's the issue. The part of your quote that you omitted is the part I was referring to. I know you like to selectively quote sources to prove your point, but here is your entire response:

You seem to think it is moral for western countries to kill Syrians, because our hearts will be in the right place when we do so. And why do you imagine we have "evolved" culturally further than Africans and Arabs? Much of what we are, we are because of them.

I'm sorry I didn't selectively quote you above. I'm seeing now I should have so as not to have confused you on the matter. The bolded part is what I was referring to.

 

[kallipolis]

It would appear that Assad's air force has been testing defences at a UK airbase in Cyprus from which American aircraft could launch operations against targets in Syria. The two Syrian air craft involved would make formidable adversaries:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/syrian-warplanes-flee-after-testing-2259425

 

[tigerfan482]

Ummm... ...I guess you missed it, but your link claims that civilians were killed.

I think you just provided evidence of the opposite of your claim that cruise missiles don't kill people.

Totally my mistake. I thought when you said civilians, you meant innocent civilians who weren't involved in any of the military affairs. I guess by that logic, there is nothing that can be done to Assad either since he is a civilian. In fact, if any country wants to commit atrocities, they should just get civilians to do it and no one would be able to do anything about it.

Or, a possibly better solution, would be targeted military strikes against facilities involved in the attacks with the understanding that anyone operating in said facility is an offender. Chemical weapons need people to fire them/set them off. Those people are just as guilty as the chemical weapons themselves, if not more so. So, as my link stated above, if you're a North Korean nuclear scientist helping Syria build and operate a secret nuclear reactor, then you're probably going to get killed. If you're a Syrian food seller who doesn't hang around inside secret nuclear reactors, then you're safe.

Finally, I've never made the claim that missiles don't kill people. I've made the claim that missiles can be targeted so they don't kill innocent people, and my link above demonstrates that.

So, you do not consider imprisonment forever without charge or trial to be a violation of human rights.

First off, you can't make a claim that people have been imprisoned forever since we haven't reached the end of time and they're not dead yet. Second, when the person is an enemy combatant caught during a time of conflict, then I don't consider it a violation of human rights to detain them until the end of said conflict. This is spelled out pretty clearly in the Geneva Conventions. We are providing them food, clothing, medical attention, shelter, and freedom to practice their beliefs as they see fit. We are allowed, by international law, to detain them until the end of the conflict. No violation of human rights here. Now if you want to talk about gassing civilians with nerve agent, then we might be straying into the territory of violating human rights. But that you don't care about as long as they aren't detained forever.

Again, your own link says nothing about those countries supporting a US attack on Syria.

And, in fact, a simple Google search will prove that almost all of them object (in many cases, quite strenuously) to such an approach.

Why are you trying to twist the meaning of statements to the opposite of what they say? Are you a Republican?

You failing to read/comprehend what I posted actually seems to make you seemingly the Republican. Read the bolded line in the quote. The US's stance is to take limited military action against Syria. "We support efforts undertaken by the United States and other countries to reinforce the prohibition on the use of chemical weapons" seems to indicate that they are siding with the United States's efforts.

The claim is that the USA is the only nation ever to have used nuclear weapons in anger against another country. A claim with which you say you disagree.

I say I disagree with your claim it was done out of anger. You're twisting my words to make it sound like I disagree the US is the only country to have used nuclear weapons. Your Fox-news type arguments where instead of arguing the merits of the situation, you twist people's words to misrepresent them has a name. It's called a straw-man argument and is a logical fallacy. Try looking it up.

I mean you no disrespect, tigerfan, but it is no fun to "debate" with someone who claims that cruise missiles don't kill people, that imprisonment of people forever without charge or trial is not a violation of human rights, and that the US nuking of Japan was done in friendship and not anger.

Please understand if I choose not to respond to your posts in future.

I understand and welcome your choice not to respond to me further since you engage almost solely in straw-man arguments and subtly change your position every time you post. I have never claimed that cruise missiles can't or don't kill people. They can kill whoever you point them at. What I am claiming is that who they kill can be generally controlled (as opposed to chemical weapons which can kill 5 people or 5000 just depending on how the wind is blowing) and that they can be targeted so that they don't kill innocent civilians. I am arguing that international law accounts for prisoners of war and that they can be held until the end of the conflict. I'm not arguing that any person in the world can be picked up and held forever. And my claim was that the US nuking of Japan wasn't some lover's quarrel that was based in emotion. It was a strategic military action.

 

[tigerfan482]

None of the parties are that foolish. If they thought they could make the blame stick on Assad, the terrorists and Islamists would do it in a minute... which maybe is what's happening now -- I still don't see any motive for Assad to have done this, though OTOH the younger brother isn't all that brilliant, so maybe....


Time for a leak from the White House that Obama is considering supporting the Kurds in seceding from Syria, to reduce the extent of the thing....

There are plenty of foolish parties that are both fighting in Syria as well as have backing from the Syrian government. The unanswered use of chemical weapons is a game changer. If the threat of military strike kept Assad from giving his chemical weapons to his friends in Hezbollah in the past, that threat would be gone if nothing happens. If al Qaeda does defeat Assad and gets access to those chemical weapons, then they are now a loose cannon with weapons they haven't previously had. The common thread is the chemical weapons, and I strongly believe we need to send in an international force to remove those. There is no group in Syria that should have these types of weapons of mass destruction and there are no parties that have any credibility on being able to possess them without use.

This idea of standing back and letting events happen isn't a wise course. The whole reason al Qaeda has become so prevalent among the opposition is because when this conflict first started, everyone stepped back and took a back seat and al Qaeda stepped in to provide the support the opposition was looking for. That's how they're truly going to accomplish their objectives. When the world turns its back on situations like this, they are ready to swoop in, provide support, and win popular support through actions. Even Russia has taken a lead in the past 2 years of supporting and supplying Assad with money and weapons, and I wouldn't be surprised if they are secretly supporting the rebels so they have good will with whoever wins. Active players benefit from action (not necessarily military action) while those who sit out tend to be relegated to the sidelines in the future.

 

[MystikWizard]

I posted this article in the "Red Line" thread (should probably merge all Syria threads into one at this point), but I wouldn't be surprised that this is most likely what is going on and Obama really has no interest in attacking Syria at all. It makes sense, as I suppose this is his way of back-peddling over the "red line" comments he is inevitably sorry he made now, and is simply trying to make it look like he is taking action to appear tough.

At the same time, Obama has to know that there is no way Congress is going to pass this. Obama did something foolish with the red line comments, but he is not an idiot. Even though he keeps saying he is "confident Congress will pass this", you know he sees the real numbers and there is no chance they will. I think this is a dog and pony show to appear as though he is being tough and following up with his words he made earlier in a thin attempt to intimidate Assad from using weapons and appear tough to other countries such as Iran. This way, he can say "he tried". Take a look. Fairly brief article.


"YOU THINK OBAMA WANTS TO STRIKE SYRIA? YOU'RE WRONG"
http://www.policymic.com/articles/62177/you-think-obama-wants-to-strike-syria-you-re-wrong

 

[T-Rexx]

^ Interesting article, MystikWizard.

I have suspected for some time that Obama wants Congress to reject his warmongering, to let him off the hook for the "red line" he drew on Syria.

Unfortunately, he will pay an enormous price for this. The perceived "failure" on Syria will strengthen the resolve of the do-nothing Republicans. I can't imagine that anything more will get done (on any issue) for the duration of this administration.

This is a spectacular failure by Obama.

 

[MystikWizard]

^ Interesting article, MystikWizard.

I have suspected for some time that Obama wants Congress to reject his warmongering, to let him off the hook for the "red line" he drew on Syria.

Unfortunately, he will pay an enormous price for this. The perceived "failure" on Syria will strengthen the resolve of the do-nothing Republicans. I can't imagine that anything more will get done (on any issue) for the duration of this administration.

This is a spectacular failure by Obama.

Here is another article from another writer sharing the same views that this is nothing more than political posturing from Obama and he really has no interest in attacking Syria.

But something good that may come out of it (at least some of us will feel it is a good thing) is that it will scale back the power of the Executive Branch when it comes to oversees involvement with the U.S. and help set precedent for the Executive Branch to involve Congress more in these decisions as opposed to ignoring the will of the American people and doing whatever the President wants to do on his own.

As far as the comments in bold above, to coincide with my last comments, I really think things need to be scaled back from the Executive Branch on being tasked with "doing things" anyway, and this responsibility needs to go back to the leaders in Congress to handle. I don't think it was ever the intention of the fathers of the Constitution to have the Executive Branch be tasked with "leading on all Legislative issues" anyway. Rather, their intention was three separate and equal branches of government with each branch having their own roles and responsibilities and each branch having their own checks and balances over the other branches.

I think the Senate and House Majority and Minority Leaders should be the ones tasked with the agenda-setting and the President needs to go back to being the Commander In Chief with expressed veto powers over their legislation as opposed to what we've seen these past few decades in the power grab of Presidents in the Executive Branch.

Anyway, here is another good commentary on this:
http://americablog.com/2013/09/president-obama-doesnt-want-attack-syria.html