Bombing even selected targets will just make innocent people pay for the actions of a few. There are a few people who were involved in ordering the chemical attacks. If anything were done, those few would be taken to international court (the Hague is it?) and charged with war crimes. That should be the extent of it. Oh, and someone should investigate the claims that the rebels also used chemicals several months ago. There might be some folks that need to be charged with war crimes there too.
Worked for Bin Lauden, Sadem Husein, etc. They won't show up any more than if you sued Barrack Obama because he fined you for not buying health insurance, or he caused your employer to cut your hours to under 30 hours/week.
by Anonymous Coward writes:
on Monday September 09, 2013 @10:55AM (#44797473)
Exactly. If your solution to the problem of innocents being killed results in more innocents being killed, then your solution is invalid, and you become the aggressor rather than the hero. It doesn't matter whether you killed those innocents accidentally or deliberately, because the victim gets to decide the meaning of justice, not you. The bottom line is that the vicims of "collateral damage" (let's be real and call it manslaughter) don't give a damn what your agenda is. From that point on, you are the aggressor, not the hero.
I agree but how do you even do that? The US wont even sign up to the ICC let alone help enforce it.
Getting someone like Assad to the ICC is impossible, you only have to look at Africa where countries like Kenya have instead voted to pull out crying "Oh it's so unfair, the ICC only targets Africans!" which is perhaps one of the weakest excuses ever given that to date the ICC has prosecuted more white Europeans (you know, that whole Yugoslavia thing) than anything else. Perhaps if Africa has a problem with th
The ICC is currently at the "bell the cat" stage. The U.S., Israel and Russia have signed, but not ratified it, and China and India haven't even signed, and are openly contemptuous of it. So, for any war larger than a limited civil war, the five countries most likely to be in the thick of it are not, and never will be, members of the Court.
$$$ That's what this is about. Sure, we'll kill a bunch of innocent people, help al-Qaeda, but hey, all the defense contractors will be flush with money, some of which will find its way back to the politicians that supported pressing the launch button.
The German Government confirmed over the weekend that Assad did not authorise the use of chemical weapons. This information was obtained via intercepted communications between Assad and presumably factions within the Syrian military.
Great, that gives us 3 possibilities
1. The Germans are wrong and Assad did authorize the attack. 2. The rebels have gotten their hands on chemical weapons. 3. The government of Syria has lost control of their chemical arsenal.
2 and 3 are not necessarily mutually exclusive (Rebels might have stolen the gas from the Syrian military) and I personally find those possibilities considerably more worrying than 1.
As a citizen of the US, I agree with you. Sadly, most of our populace is happy eating Mcdonalds and watching Snooki, so they're too apathetic to voice any opinions to our congress critters. At this point, I fear the military industrial complex is turning the cogs.
I can certainly see your point. And yet, Syria now presents a major difference with, say, Iraq in 2002: the country is *already* at war. Entire cities nearly razed, thousands of victims, fighters and civilians alike, large-scale gas attacks, war crimes on both sides... Western strikes cannot make Syria cannot descend into chaos, because it's already there.
So, while I doubt that an attack would make things any better, I can hardly see how it could make them worse. Iraq was by no means a nice place to live un
So why would you impose your Western point of view onto a population that is at most apathetic towards your existence? The "we care about their well-being and therefore we bomb their country" is old and wrinkled. The MOST I would agree with is total cessation of trading with said country. "We don't agree with your internal actions so we stop trading with you" is fine, it's your decision as a country. But dropping bombs onto their heads is despicable.
Internal matters are internal matters.
Finally, if some US states decide they want to revolt and civil war ensues and a party uses chemical weapons in a situation - what would you say about the UK, Russia, China starting to bomb USA ground because hey, "you used gas and we need to show you the light at the end of the tunnel by force".
Whenever someone thinks "we should bomb them for this reason!" - they should be ready to stand by the "they should bomb us for the same reason" approach. With this in mind... should the USA bomb Syria for this reason?
As a US citizen, if the US government used gas on its civilians, I would certainly want any other country that could to bomb them into the ground. Why would you want otherwise?
Finally, if some US states decide they want to revolt and civil war ensues and a party uses chemical weapons in a situation - what would you say about the UK, Russia, China starting to bomb USA ground because hey, "you used gas and we need to show you the light at the end of the tunnel by force".
I am an American. If my state seceded from the union and the union used gas against my state, I would certainly hope the rest of the world would intervene. My only problem with such intervention is that it does not stop there: The interventionists usually stay and set up the local power structures to favor themselves. In such a case, all hope is lost. Either I get gassed or give up sovereignty. Better to be dead than not free...
So if the intervention was just bombs and no soldiers on the ground, I would be
I think you're way off base here. I'd bet the majority of our populace is against "intervention." And, it looks like congress is as well. This all seems to be isolated to the executive branch -- the same ones who fucked up Benghazi.
Benghazi? Oh you mean that totally made up crisis created by the republicans in an effort to create a controversy for the administration.
If the republicans really cared that much they would have limited the US engagement to Afghanistan, not entered into an unneeded war in Iraq, and not perpetuate the idea that the US was having a war against Muslims which created the tensions that led up to Benghazi in the first place.
On the other hand if the republicans really care that much about Benghazi then why the f
Wat? When was the last time anyone "demanded" the US' help, and even more to the point, when has the US ever listened? You only helped in WWII after Pearl Harbour.
Might want to look at the history of Lend-Lease as well as the previous "cash-and-carry" policy of the USA from 1940.
You might also note that the USA took part in escorting convoys full or war material to the UK and USSR before Pearl Harbor.
And google Reuben James sometime (hint: Halloween 1941 was BEFORE Pearl Harbor).
As to the point you thought you were making, noone declared war on us, and we weren't wrapped up in mutual defense pacts with people like Poland (which is what got the UK involved inn WW2), so why should we have gotten involved earlier? Because you can't beat the Germans alone is not, in and of itself, a reason for us to help you (though, as mentioned above, we did help you, just not by throwing bodies at your problem).
Might want to look at the history of Lend-Lease as well as the previous "cash-and-carry" policy of the USA from 1940.
You might also note that the USA took part in escorting convoys full or war material to the UK and USSR before Pearl Harbor.
And google Reuben James sometime (hint: Halloween 1941 was BEFORE Pearl Harbor).
As to the point you thought you were making, noone declared war on us, and we weren't wrapped up in mutual defense pacts with people like Poland (which is what got the UK involved inn WW2), so why should we have gotten involved earlier? Because you can't beat the Germans alone is not, in and of itself, a reason for us to help you (though, as mentioned above, we did help you, just not by throwing bodies at your problem).
You may also wish to look up history.
The US denied the sale (note sale, not giving nor lend lease) of it's oldest destroyers to England when Churchill requested them in 1939. The US did not get involved because it was politically inconvenient. Roosevelt believed that it would lose him the election.
The US flatly refused to get involved until after FDR was re-elected. It did not act until after it was attacked despite the Germans killing American civilians on several ships, the first deaths were on the
by Anonymous Coward writes:
on Monday September 09, 2013 @11:01AM (#44797539)
The situation is complicated: Syria shares a huge border with Turkey, our most important NATO ally in the region. Israel is not that far away. Oil runs through and under Syria, most of it not actually bound for the US. We also kind of set a precedent in Libya that if rebels cry enough, and more importantly bleed enough, they can call in international support for free*. (Terms and conditions may apply.) Chemical weapons have also been used, but by whom is an open question.
The civil war in Syria has been a clusterfuck from the start. What began as peaceful protesters getting shot by security forces burgeoned into a full-blown revolution, with the Syrian army so hopelessly incompetent it can't even keep the equally incompetent rebels out of Damascus but equally powerful enough to keep them from winning. It's been a war of attrition for over two years now and shows no signs of stopping. The war would have ended a year ago if the rebels hadn't been given weapons by the West -- rebels that have been acknowleged to have links to every terrorist group you'd care to mention (this is more and less of a problem than you'd think: the terrorists also happen to be the only civilians in the Middle East trained to fight). Meanwhile Russia is giving Syria weapons too, so the whole thing is devolving into one of those Cold War African brush wars that were just proxy battles for foreign powers. It's kind of funny Obama decides now is the time to have moral outrage over the issue when Syria is not a signatory of the Chemical Weapons Convention, which means they can do whatever they want with the stuff. They're not breaking the law with chemical weapons. Chemical weapons are indiscriminate: everyone agrees how terrible nerve gas is but no one acted to stop Syria before they acquired one of the world's largest stockpiles of the stuff.
On a humanitarian front, things have been equally terrible: refugees have been overwhelming nearby countries and that's really pissing them off. The suffering has been tremendous.
Everyone agrees that the civil war has to end and soon, but no one is willing to do something to decisively end the stalemate. The US is proposing to resolve the question with military action, but as Congress has remarked, what good is an airstrike going to do if your end goal is regime change? They know that this is going to turn into something even bigger than Iraq, and even worse: Syria has allies. No one has really given diplomacy a chance, and all sides seem interested in letting Syria bleed even more while they hem and haw at the prospect of getting involved. The Saudis are even offering money to get this over with before oil prices rise to the point everyone switches to green power.
Now that the US has proposed military action it can't back down without being completely humiliated on the world stage, and Congress is very much aware of the decline of American influence. I would not be surprised if the airstrikes are authorized, with the condition that no troops be sent to the area. Turkey is more than willing to take the fight to the Syrians, I say let them: give aid to the French, Turkish and Israeli forces and just let them have at it.
The cork will clearly be out of the bottle if Al Qaeda lay their hands on Sarin and distribute it to their network of Death-Cultists.
The Syrian government clearly has chemical weapons, but they are so far maintaining control over them (who actually made the attack still seems in question, which needs to be resolved factually, not emotionally).
The keystone is Assad and his supporters. Once he is no longer in charge it's all a crapshoot and we've seen how badly that can go in Iraq. Regardless if we have boo
The situation is really not that complicated: 1. The US is a NATO ally of Turkey, a close ally of Israel, and friendly with Jordan, as well as controlling the puppet government in Iraq. In other words, Syria is nearly surrounded. 2. Russia is a close ally of the Assad government. 3. Turkey and Israel really really want the US to remove Assad for them and replace him with a friendly regime. 4. Any overt action on the part of the US would force Russia into the fray on the other side, potentially kicking off WW II
However, had NATO done so, then Russia would have been forced to call in the entirety of the Warsaw Pact nations to defend Syria, again kicking on WW III.
You're a bit out of date there. The Warsaw Pact has ceased to be about 22 years ago.
There is a key difference between Libya and Syria, beyond the geopolitical considerations of Syria being a big part of the Israel-Arab enmity. Libya ended up being a struggle between nearly all the people of the country and a bunch of foreign mercenaries, nobody really supported the previous government. Syria is just a standard civil war.
Syria needs help, not a beating. What you said is fine as far as it goes, but you don't talk about why civil war has erupted in Syria. If we don't understand or care about the causes, then whatever action we take, if any, is very unlikely to accomplish anything good.
Syria has had severe drought since 2006, possibly caused by Climate Change. They turned to irrigation from wells to wait out the dry spell, but that didn't buy them enough time. The water level dropped too low for more pumping. Crop failures are around 75% to 85%. Farmers had to do something. Many left their land and poured into the cities, where there were no jobs to be had. The Syrian government has done a terrible job of handling the crisis. Early in the drought, they sold a bunch of surplus wheat they had stored, wheat that they now desperately need to feed themselves. They treated farmers simply asking for help as subversive troublemakers, and have arrested many. That treatment is what touched off the violence.
For an outsider like the US to come in and start moralizing over chemical weapons, threatening to lob a few bombs, is no help at all. The Assad government should get the boot, but that's the least of Syria's problems. They're vicious and incompetent, but they didn't cause the mess though they certainly aggravated it immensely. Suppose the US could surgically strike so well that we completely destroy all the chemical weapons Syria has, without killing anyone, and we did that. The civil war would barely notice, and would rage on. Same if US strikes managed to kill Assad and break his government's hold on power. And same if we established a No Fly Zone. What the world should do is either take over, send lots of food to stabilize things, then get to work on more permanent solutions, or the world should mind its own business. Apart from the likely insurmountable problem of coming to a consensus on how to run Syria, the first course of action is very costly, so it's not happening. Trying to stop the violence with threats or even action is not going to work.
Regardless of what the world does in Syria, one problem we all should address is Climate Change.
As you even admit in your post, the drought in Syria was POSSIBLY caused by Climate Change. That's a theory, but there's no way to be sure. It could also just be one of the droughts that has plagued nations for centuries, at random times and places?
I'd agree with most of what you said, except your summary seems completely misplaced to me..... Turning the Syria crisis into just another reason the world needs to address Climate Change? Umm, no. For starters, Syria clearly mishandled the situation with their crops and farmers in a MASSIVE way. There's no excuse for creating a Civil War over the fact that there's a water shortage. Treating farmers coming to the cities for assistance as subversives and arresting them?? Yeah, THAT would really fly in most civilized parts of the world!
Climate Change or not, countries will have hardships and natural disasters.... It's just part of life. If they're incapable of handling them in an appropriate manner, they should expect uprisings and overthrows.
While Syria is not a signatory of the CWC, they are a signatory of the Geneva Protocol (Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare). So they're prohibited from using chemical and biological agents, but not prohibited from producing, storing or transferring. So yes, they are breaking international law by using such weapons.
They warned us that if I voted for McCain or Romney, we'd see an increasingly warmongering, jingoistic administration out to bomb Islamic nations that have never attacked us... and they were right!
I don't remember Romney as coming across particularly hawkish apart from this line [huffingtonpost.com], which now just sounds rather prescient.
I was also surprised to find out that Obama was indeed once considered to be the "anti-war" candidate [nytimes.com], but the truth is that foreign policy really took a backseat to domestic issues in the last two elections.
It's great to have an external enemy if you have domestic problems, but this is over in the area of being ridiculous.
Especially since there's already problems knowing who's good and who's bad.
It's not worth it to take action there, the only thing that shall be done is watch them to avoid surprises. If you shall bomb - then drop food bombs instead. That could be really confusing even for Putin since he won't be able to know how to answer that.
To be fair if you'd voted for either of those two the bombs would've started falling on Syria about 2 years ago (Well, less if it was Romney ofc). The fact it's taking this long is a testament to the fact Obama is at very least slightly less hotheaded than those two.
They warned us that if I voted for McCain or Romney, we'd see an increasingly warmongering, jingoistic administration out to bomb Islamic nations that have never attacked us... and they were right!
They warned my Dad if he voted for Goldwater, we'd go to war. And they were right back then, too.
Unfortunately, this war also seems to have bipartisan support. They always seem like better ideas beforehand. Fortunately, it also has bipartisan opposition. Somehow, I'm actually on the same side as my Teabagger US Rep. That's a first. And my fundie father-in-law. Another first.
Wait, I gotta take back the US Rep first thing, he was with me on the NSA vote, too. That's two truffles.
If you gas 400 children and many more other innocent adults, people should be lining up around the block to smack you in the mouth. Other nations should be ashamed of themselves for looking the other way.
Does it suck to get involved? Absolutely. Do we have a clear side we can support? Nope. Will it be messy? Absolutely.
I guess I feel an obligation and a duty to make sure no backwater leader feels weapons of mass destruction are an OK response to a regional conflict.
It's always somebody else's problem until it's not.
How is it that the method of killing merits a greater response than the quantity of those killed? North Korea, for instance, kills tens of thousands of innocents per year and imprisions hundreds of thousands (most of whom die a slow and painful death of starvation and disease). I guess Kim is safe so long as he doesn't gas a few hundred?
The problem with chemical weapons is that they are the start of a slippery slope. Sarin -> VX -> (bio or nuclear). Chemical vs conventional is an arbitrary line, but one that is pretty well accepted internationally.
IF the UN weapons inspectors decide that the Assad regime was responsible for the chemical weapons use, then I think a punitive strike is reasonable. The goal would not be to help the rebels (I don't want the US involved in a civil war), but to punish the regime for using illegal weapons. I say this with the understanding that a US strike would not make things better - that isn't the goal, the goal is to prevent them from becoming worse in the future.
IF the UN weapons inspectors do not conclude that the Assad regime was responsible, then I would not support a strike.
If there is no strong response to the use of chemical weapons, then I would expect to see them used again and more extensively.
Some people will object that past US actions show that we are no better. I won't argue with that, but form where we are now (absent time machine) we need to figure out what the best response is NOW. With Russia blocking any UN action, I don't see any other way to discourage future use of chemical weapons, and eventually worse.
BTW: I support military action against ANY country that uses WMDs, even those that are nominally our allies.
BTW: I do NOT support drone strikes, invasions, target killings etc by the US or allies. If I knew how to stop them I would.
IF the UN weapons inspectors decide that the Assad regime was responsible for the chemical weapons use
I seem to recall reading last week that the UN inspectors were there only to determine whether chemical weapons were used, and NOT to determine who used them.
So I don't think there's much chance of them deciding Assad did it, when they're already saying "not our job to determine who did it".
We could accept unlimited war. In that case though might the hundreds of thousands turn into millions, or even billions (for unlimited nuclear war)? The world tried to limit WMDs because horrific as conventional war is, we can now build weapons that are vastly worse.
If not here, where would you draw the line? If you want to stop conventional war, how would you do it?
Its pretty clear they were used, but it would be nice to have the confirmed by an international body.
I was hoping that the weapons inspectors could also provide some information on the source of the weapons - it would be very nice to know that this wasn't a false-flag operation by a third party. I don't know if chemical analysis is good enough to limit the possible sources.
Only rational people can be deterred. This is why deterrence fails so often in the Middle East. Not that there are no rational people there but just that they aren't in charge.
How is it that the method of killing merits a greater response than the quantity of those killed?
Your question is tantamount to "Why should war have rules?".
The rule against chemical weapons is simply a subset of "rules of war". These include rules for the treatment of POWs. Because of these standards, a lot of GIs came home from the European theater who otherwise wouldn't have. Likewise, it would have been a lot more convenient for the US to just neglect or gun down Axis POWs, or napalm the whole area during mop-up operations rather than accept surrenders. Etc, etc.
So. If war has rules, either you enforce them or war has no rules. Most reasonable powers, even some unreasonable powers like North Korea realize that a no-holds-barred street fight could lead to something like 20% survival rate with a bunch of unhealthy people trying to rebuild after victory vs. 90% survival after victory.
Aside from the cold rational incentive to follow rules of war, they are also deeply rooted in something like chivalry. At least, that's what the West calls it. The East and other areas have different names and different codes that historically allowed different things. For example, Japanese didn't view surrender as honorable during the WW2 era, and that caused a lot of problems. I'm not picking on Japan here. I'm simply pointing it out as an obvious difference between different cultures having different rules. I'm sure there are some rules the Japanese had for conduct in war that were kind and gentle in some way. One of the most universal rules of war used to be "don't kill women and children". Modern technology has made that impractical as an absolute; but the nature of chemical weapons is such that they can't be easily confined to the target zone.
Anyway, to answer your original question. It's because war has rules designed to limit its scope in various ways, and chemical weapons are outside those limits.
I saw some forum poster (probably at Fark) summarize it thusly:
The guys that made it out of WWI after the air bursting artillery, watching wave after wave of fellow humans get mowed down by machine guns, soggy trenches, bayoneting a few people, the screams of people dying on the wire in no-man's land, trench foot, disease, gangrene... the guys that made it through all that drew the line and said chemical weapons were too barbaric.
I'm not feeling like you really answered that question. You are correct the Wars can have rules or "Conventions", but they are not always held to the strict standard and they tend to be between warring nations, not a warring nation.
As I have learned here, Syria did not sign the CW Ban Treaty thus they are not obligated to be held to an international rule they did not sign. If they used CW against another country there is a more compelling argument for action, a declaration of War and the establishment (or
(the anti american/. crowd can sharpen their mod knives, it's ok, I've got karma to burn)
This is my view as well. We used to take a moral stance against bad guys. Lately all we care about is ourselves. The ultimate hypocrisy is the large numbers of right wingers and conservative who were all jumped up to go into Iraq because of his "WMDs", because of how he treated his people, because it "was the right thing to do", etc etc. Simply put, America does not, or didnt use to, abide bullies.
Who was it that used chemical weapons in Syria? Back (3 months ago) when UN weapons inspectors were allowed to determine things like that, their conclusion was that it was the rebels (there have been many chemical weapons attacks there).
There's plenty of circumstantial evidence that the Syrian government used chemical weapons as well, but the only proven cases were uses against the Syrian government.
Ok, so we're going to bomb someone who was the victim of a chemical weapons attack because we think he retaliated in kind? This after Syrian allies went to the UN to get help rounding up the people we know used chemical weapons... and we blocked it. If there's truth to this narrative (which is significantly more documented by the UN and Russia than our government's story), we're way in the wrong here.
Assad(or someone else, who knows) uses sarine in Syria, resulting in few thousand casualityes - mass murder, world is screaming for blood!
USA uses "agent orange" in Vietnam, quoteing wikipedia for results:
Agent Orange or Herbicide Orange (HO) is one of the herbicides and defoliants used by the U.S. military as part of its chemical warfare program, Operation Ranch Hand, during the Vietnam War from 1961 to 1971. Vietnam estimates 400,000 people were killed or maimed, and 500,000 children born with birth defects as a result of its use The Red Cross of Vietnam estimates that up to 1 million people are disabled or have health problems due to Agent Orange
And USA gets treated as last bastion of justice and freedom
Seems to me that chemical warfare is not the problem, but who is doing it.
Not just agent orange. US used too Napalm, white phosphorus, cluster bombs, drones and even killing for fun in civilian populations since WWII. They care so much about human rights that put children in guantanamo and tortured them. And the people behind all those almost genocidal operations have a bunch of medals, are still in command with big salaries (or have big returements) , schools/libraries/etc named after them and so on.
Over that, you have to question the motivations and the accuracy of the informa
Actually we do have a fairly good chance of getting a favorable outcome, if we do it right. Assad had already started moderning his country "gradually adopting economic liberalization, neo-liberal and capitalist policies." These were meant largely for his personal benefit along witht he business class (not surprising really), BUT an economy opening up to capitalism and free market ideals is good for everyone involved. so when the people start seeing the personal benefit of this themselves, they start to wan
Generally my sympathies are with the rebels. But they have been proving themselves to not be terribly noble. The key factor to keep in mind is that this is no longer a civil war. This is a religious war. Religious wars tend to be nasty nasty nasty. Basically this would be like taking sides in a divorce between two alcoholic parents who are both (rightfully) accusing the other of being abusive to the kids.
My suggestion would focus support on the refugees and finding out if any zones of sanity had formed
Obama has already pretty much declared that we aren't going to bomb Syria. Not in words, but in actions. He handed over the issue to Congress, as Congress was demanding--thus insuring that the current intractable gridlock will prevent him from having to take an unpopular action. Don't forget that Congress already had a full agenda planned out with their manufactured crises (filibuster for the Continuing Resolution, and of course the Debt Ceiling), they don't have time to deal with a real crisis.
"Gridlock" isn't the issue here, the public isn't behind this action. It's looking increasingly likely that this resolution will be defeated in the Senate(which is controlled the Presidents party).
The House leadership has already said they will not bring a vote until after the Senate has voted. If the Senate votes "no" the House won't even bring this resolution up for a vote(as it will already be dead at that point).
Far from being "Gridlock" this is looking like this will be VERY direct action from the Congress. It just won't be what the President says that he wants. I do agree with you, his actions really suggests that he doesn't want to do this at all... and it's baffling to me why he would spend the political capital to try to push this issue when he really doesn't want to bomb them.
The alternative is basically telling Assad: Oh sure, we don't really care, go ahead and gas your civilians all you like. Basically a repeat of the Iraq attack in 1988 that Bush Sr. and the rest of the world did nothing about.
Not that I support the Syrian gov, but its really not clear that it wasn't actually the rebels that deployed Sarin, rather the Syrian government.
Sarin is very easy to make in a basement compared to other nerve agents, but is at least 10x less effective and has a much shorter life compared to stuff most militarys would ultimately have access to.
If the government/military really wanted to release nerve gas, they would probably be much more likely to use something like Vx rather than Sarin (unless they were tr
Although the use of Sarin against civilians in Syria is evil incarnate, one needs to look at where this might go. There are many possibilities, but the one that may be most frighting goes something like this.
The US unilaterally attacks Syria with conventional bombs and missiles. Syria attacks Israel with conventional weapons, which has been mentioned as a possibility. Israel retaliates with conventional weapons, but with much greater force. Syria again attacks Israel with more force and this escalatio
Normally I'm all in favor of supporting revolutions against unjust regimes, and Assad's regime is clearly evil enough to be worth deposing. Libya? Egypt? We should have done more to help.
The problem with Syria is that the rebels seem equally evil. It seems to be more about sectarianism than equality, and the fact that one side is supported by Russia and the other by several terrorist groups certainly doesn't help.
Had we come in earlier, supporting the rebels while the movement could still be turned towards
What I don't get at all is why US thinks it has right or obligation to start bombing another independent country. Granted, the civil war there has gone a bit out of hands, but this did not bother anybody in case of Rwanda or several other places.
We have a dedicated organization to handle such matters - UN. If UN reaches a conclusion that military operation is the only way to proceed and then turns to US to get military help, only then should US start to think about bombing anything or anybody.
Who the fuck has given the USA to decide what's moral?
BTW : LOL. The USA bombs either to destroy Commies (50-80s) or Muslims (90-today) or to get oil.
Where were the morals in Ruanda or in Zagreb? Was it moralistic to use Agent Orange or Napalm in 'Nam? Was it moralistic to use weapons of mass destructions (freaking Nukes) in Japan? Totally unnecessary as the Japanese government already signalled to sign a peace treaty. Nooooo. don't haggle with the Japanese. Let'
Was it moralistic to use weapons of mass destructions (freaking Nukes) in Japan?
Yes it was. (BTW the correct usage is "was it moral...?".)
Totally unnecessary as the Japanese government already signalled to sign a peace treaty. Nooooo. don't haggle with the Japanese. Let's incinerate hundred of thousands of them, destroy two cities and give millions cancer just to show who the biggest Penis has.
Spoken like someone who hasn't read enough history about those times. The Japanese soldiers were brutal, inhuman opponents. They were well known for their merciless and sadistic acts. After Pearl Harbor and what followed "haggling" with the Japanese was not an option. The requirement was unconditional surrender, which by the way has worked out very well since.
Nor were the consequences of Hiroshima and Nagasaki anything like what you portray... I wonder if you aware that the conventional attacks on Tokyo caused more loss of life...?
The USA has forever lost the right to use the word "Moral". Don't dare to use that word.
You are a fine example of the ignorance created by our current "educational" system. Like all countries, the US has its flaws. I defy you to name another country that's done as much for the betterment of humanity. I'm sure the hundreds of thousands of WW II American casualties are proud of you. Right?
For me, it's like this: you're sitting in a nice restaurant, minding your business, when some guy starts up arguing and fighting with his wife and yelling at his kids. Now, it's none of your business, but it's sure uncomfortable.
Then, he up and smacks her, and starts hitting his kids. And then does it again. People yell at him from around the restaurant, but noone does anything else, and he smacks her again.
So, do I/we have a responsibility to stop the guy? I mean, the family spat is none of our business, right? But when he starts hitting the wife and kids and won't stop, don't we have to do something? It's not about taking sides or figuring out who's right or wrong in the spat or what the outcome for me personally would be, and I'm sure as hell not a cop, but I just have to stop it. Even if it means violence.
I accept your premise, in a restaurant. In fact I have gotten involved in a situation somewhat like what you described. I would do so again, despite the scars. (Scars I got from the woman I might add.)
The problem I have, is that this is happening 5000 miles away. Not my problem, let their neighbours deal with it.
Another thought, this is basically a religious war. You can't stop a religious war, you can only wait for it to burn itself out, and perhaps try to help those running away.
Lastly. Who elected the
I think your metaphor may be a little off. With Syria, it feels more like I'm walking down the street and happen upon two adults duking it out. I call the police. Then, one of the combatants pulls out a gun. I also have a gun. Do I let the armed fighter shoot the opponent? Do I shoot the armed fighter? Either way, I do not know who the "good guy" is. If I shoot the armed combatant, the unarmed guy (who might be the real bad guy) might pick up the loose weapon and shoot me. If I leave them alone, the armed fighter could shoot his opponent and then me.
I think I would be happy with Syria giving up its chemical weapons to international control.
Then, he up and smacks her, and starts hitting his kids. And then does it again. People yell at him from around the restaurant, but noone does anything else, and he smacks her again.
So, do I/we have a responsibility to stop the guy?
Well currently it looks like he's been hitting his wife and kids for quite some time, and nobody did intervene. But just right now, he has poured some unidentified liquid in the soup that the family has ordered, and *that* you consider over the top, because in your moral sense, it is fundamentally wrong to poison the very food that your family eats.
The restaurant's chef (his name is UN) passing by your table is still cautious because haven't seen yet if the man has actually *peed* in the soup, or just emptied a tap water bottle, and tries to calm you down.
But nonetheless you decide that the whole "probably peed on" soup incident was over the top, so you ready yourself to grab that grenade that you always carry in your bag for this purpose an throw it on the guy. In order to blow him up into pieces. While at risk that the grenade will tear the wife and kids into pieces too. And will probably hurt a few other tables around. (Not mentioning that the whole restaurant is going to become a place where everybody else is going to feel a little bit less comfortable). You see a friend called france on a neighbouring table who promise to put "likes" on the facebook photo album you plan to do about the incident. It's good because the few other friend you had around (including the big guy called Britain) are telling they are fed up with your facebook photo album boasting.
Meanwhile the man is still hitting his wife and kids. (Oh, did I mention that the wife is a member of some weird religious sect who encourage her to ritually bite of the genitals of all individual including her own kids ?)
While all this is happening, there have been fights around quite a few other table (like the one where the family is named Rwanda) but nobody actually cares. And by fight I mean that not only have the man started hitting his own wife and kids, but also move pn to stabbing them with all the available cutlery on the table and is trying to see if he can use something as a make-shift whip. But at least, thank god *he* didn't try peeing in the soup. (You notice that you happen to be the owner of the shop selling the cutlery and make a mental notice to sell him a few more pieces because there's definitely some market for this).
Meanwhile while you were busy noticing all this around you, a friend on your table has discretely stolen your organiser and is methodically copying all the phone numbers of your mistresses. A waiter passing by notice it a tries to make you realise it. But all you do is start running after him trying to find a way to catch him and waterboard him (but hidden in the kitchen, not on your own table in front of your wife and kids).
A nice blond girl called Sweden is trying to distribute band-aid to all the hurt people.
(I take no credit for the following post, but I thought this was an interesting attempt to suss out the true rationale for U.S. military intervention in Syria. Whether or not you think intervention is warranted, I think most can agree that the government's rationale for intervention is pretty murky. )
"I've been reading through these comments, and I don't think any of them strike at the truth of the matter. I apologize if this seems blunt. Hereafter I will provide a detailed examination of US interest in Syria. Realpolitik refers to politics or diplomacy based primarily on power and on practical and material factors and considerations, rather than ideological notions or moral or ethical premises. In this respect, it shares aspects of its philosophical approach with those of realism and pragmatism. Chemical weapons aren't why the president is interested in Syria. The US has actually been interested in helping the Syrian rebels for a long time. That last link is from the past few days, but they're all connected, which I'll get to. The US has brought several motions to the UN. Things involving military force, military aid, or war in general are brought to the UN Security Council, a 12 member group consisting of 5 permanent members: US, UK, France, China, and Russia. The permanent members of the council have a special privilege: if any one of them vetoes a motion, it fails automatically. As I said, the US has brought several motions to the UN, which I linked above. All of them have failed, and all of them have failed because Russia (and China) have vetoed them using their veto powers. So the US has long been interested in helping the Syrian rebels-- why is Russia concerned with vetoing efforts to help them? This is what it's all about: the politics of power. Realpolitik. Syria, ruled by Bashar al-Assad (who functions basically as a dictator) is Russia's only ally in the Middle East region. The Russians sell a lot of arms to the Syrian government, and importantly the Russian's only naval base in the Mediterranean is based in Tartus, Syria. So, for geostrategic reasons alone, we can see that Russia is interested in keeping the friendly Syrian government in power. Though this isn't the Cold War, Russia is a competitor, so to some extent the US is interested in seeing the Syrian government fall because it would reduce the influence of a competitor in the region. Another ally of Syria is Iran. You see, al-Assad is an Alawite-- a sect of Shiite Islam. Iran is majority Shiite Islam. The history is too long to recount here, but basically: Islam is divided into two major branches, Sunni and Shiite, which are not friends with each other. Iran and Syria are the only countries in the Middle East with Shiites in power, and Iran is the only country that actually has a majority of its citizens Shiites. It's in Iran's interest to keep the Syrian government in power, as they are the only other Shiite buddy in the region. This, too, is a reason why the US wants the Syrian government to fall; one of our longstanding goals is to remove the Iranian theocracy and prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. Removing a friend of Iran reduces their power and influence. Recently to this end of stopping Iran, the US has spent several years encouraging international adoption of economic sanctions against Iran. Then, there is Israel to consider. Syria borders Israel to its north, and the two have had quite a lot of tension before; during the Six-Day War, Israel occupied the Golan Heights and effectively annexed it, in contravention of international law. The two have not been on good
I suspect the initial hope was that rebel forces would overwhelm the government with little to no support from the US. But in the last couple months that idea has fallen apart since Syrian gov't had managed to turn the tide of battle with some help from Russia.
It sounds to me like the administration latched onto the idea of Chemical Weapons as a precipitating event, since they could spin it as an act so terrible that moral conscience demanded intervention.
You need a moral excuse to go to war, something simp
To answer your question, in the words of Trey Parker...
America, FUCK YEAH! Coming again, to save the mother fucking day yeah, America, FUCK YEAH! Freedom is the only way yeah, Terrorist your game is through cause now you have to answer too, America, FUCK YEAH! So lick my butt and suck on my balls, America, FUCK YEAH! What you going to do when we come for you now, it’s the dream that we all share; it’s the hope for tomorrow
U.S. is the source of effectively one-party regime, pointless wars and worldwide spying. If that's what's called "actual democracy" I am not sure I want this so much any more. Even Russia does not seem so bad any more in comparison, not because that Russia has got any better lately (it isn't), but because U.S. has turned a lot worse.
If you really want to find some democracy, you should look in Switzerland. By some reason it is not so eager to send bombers to other countries, I wonder why that might be.
PS. Communism is not a danger at the moment, and socialism a la Sweden does not look so bad.
The US hasn't gotten worse. Anyone who thinks so is utterly ignorant of what went on behind the scenes during the Cold War (or any other time in US history).
The US has gotten more transparent -- not by choice of course, but because the internet has made dissemination of information much easier. And as a result, all of the "dirty tricks" and spying and whatnot have moved from the shadows into the light. Which makes the US look a lot worse, even though it's actually gotten less bad.
That veto power that you gloss over allows a small number of large powerful nations (including the US) to effectively paralyze the UN regardless of what the majority might actually think.
In this particular case, the position of the Arab League is far more relevant than the UN as these are the nations most directly affected.
Well then, "the world" needs to do something about it, rather than just exclusively the US Executive Branch. Come on, who else is with us, anyone, anyone, Bueller?
That's what I expected, Assad is evil as fuck but he's far from stupid, he knows that if he could keep the chemical weapons under control the US government would happily look the other way while he slaughtered his own people, but then his military got out of control and started using them. His recent offer to put the chemical weapons under international control is basically an admission that his military is running wild.
The evidence was never compelling before the Iraq war, it was the same old crew repeating that they have evidence over and over. Intelligence reports were doctored to make it look like there was evidence but no real evidence ever existed.
It's the same here, the so called leaders say there is evidence so many times people believe it, but there isn't anything that would stand up in court.
While I am an American against the bombing... pray tell... where exactly in Syria is this largess of oil you speak of?
Iran.. Syria has a defense pact with Iran, any defense of Syria by Iran will allow the US to invade Iran.
Iran has become peaceful and attempts to stir up a revolution or a direct war have failed. The embargoes have also failed as Iran still trades with China.
If you think this is far fetched you have not looked up just how much oil and gas is in Iran. That little country has more than 15 times the gas reserves the entire US does, that's the biggest gas field in the world. Meanwhile the US is poisoning their
Absolutely not! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Followed world politics much?
Worked for Bin Lauden, Sadem Husein, etc. They won't show up any more than if you sued Barrack Obama because he fined you for not buying health insurance, or he caused your employer to cut your hours to under 30 hours/week.
Re:Absolutely not! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Absolutely not! (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly. If your solution to the problem of innocents being killed results in more innocents being killed, then your solution is invalid, and you become the aggressor rather than the hero. It doesn't matter whether you killed those innocents accidentally or deliberately, because the victim gets to decide the meaning of justice, not you. The bottom line is that the vicims of "collateral damage" (let's be real and call it manslaughter) don't give a damn what your agenda is. From that point on, you are the aggressor, not the hero.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes. Ask someone in Nagasaki or Dresden whether they think of USA as a liberator or aggressor.
Killing as many civilians as possible from a safe distance seems to be modus operandi. When others do it, the US calls this terrorism.
Behold the unborn fetus, and
weep salt tears crocodilian.
All life is sacred (save, of course,
an enemy civilian).
-- Ogden Nash
Re: (Score:3)
I agree but how do you even do that? The US wont even sign up to the ICC let alone help enforce it.
Getting someone like Assad to the ICC is impossible, you only have to look at Africa where countries like Kenya have instead voted to pull out crying "Oh it's so unfair, the ICC only targets Africans!" which is perhaps one of the weakest excuses ever given that to date the ICC has prosecuted more white Europeans (you know, that whole Yugoslavia thing) than anything else. Perhaps if Africa has a problem with th
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I just don't get it. We want to kill Syrians because they're killing Syrians who are killing Syrians. Insanity it is.
Re:Absolutely not! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Absolutely not! (Score:5, Insightful)
The German Government confirmed over the weekend that Assad did not authorise the use of chemical weapons. This information was obtained via intercepted communications between Assad and presumably factions within the Syrian military.
Great, that gives us 3 possibilities
1. The Germans are wrong and Assad did authorize the attack.
2. The rebels have gotten their hands on chemical weapons.
3. The government of Syria has lost control of their chemical arsenal.
2 and 3 are not necessarily mutually exclusive (Rebels might have stolen the gas from the Syrian military) and I personally find those possibilities considerably more worrying than 1.
Re:Absolutely not! (Score:4, Insightful)
In other words:
4. Assad no longer has control of his military.
I think it's only a matter of time before he is deposed from the inside.
No. (Score:2)
Stop trying to play world police, warmongers.
Re:No. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I can certainly see your point. And yet, Syria now presents a major difference with, say, Iraq in 2002: the country is *already* at war. Entire cities nearly razed, thousands of victims, fighters and civilians alike, large-scale gas attacks, war crimes on both sides... Western strikes cannot make Syria cannot descend into chaos, because it's already there.
So, while I doubt that an attack would make things any better, I can hardly see how it could make them worse. Iraq was by no means a nice place to live un
Re:No. (Score:5, Insightful)
So why would you impose your Western point of view onto a population that is at most apathetic towards your existence?
The "we care about their well-being and therefore we bomb their country" is old and wrinkled. The MOST I would agree with is total cessation of trading with said country. "We don't agree with your internal actions so we stop trading with you" is fine, it's your decision as a country. But dropping bombs onto their heads is despicable.
Internal matters are internal matters.
Finally, if some US states decide they want to revolt and civil war ensues and a party uses chemical weapons in a situation - what would you say about the UK, Russia, China starting to bomb USA ground because hey, "you used gas and we need to show you the light at the end of the tunnel by force".
Whenever someone thinks "we should bomb them for this reason!" - they should be ready to stand by the "they should bomb us for the same reason" approach. With this in mind... should the USA bomb Syria for this reason?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Finally, if some US states decide they want to revolt and civil war ensues and a party uses chemical weapons in a situation - what would you say about the UK, Russia, China starting to bomb USA ground because hey, "you used gas and we need to show you the light at the end of the tunnel by force".
I am an American. If my state seceded from the union and the union used gas against my state, I would certainly hope the rest of the world would intervene. My only problem with such intervention is that it does not stop there: The interventionists usually stay and set up the local power structures to favor themselves. In such a case, all hope is lost. Either I get gassed or give up sovereignty. Better to be dead than not free...
So if the intervention was just bombs and no soldiers on the ground, I would be
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Benghazi? Oh you mean that totally made up crisis created by the republicans in an effort to create a controversy for the administration.
If the republicans really cared that much they would have limited the US engagement to Afghanistan, not entered into an unneeded war in Iraq, and not perpetuate the idea that the US was having a war against Muslims which created the tensions that led up to Benghazi in the first place.
On the other hand if the republicans really care that much about Benghazi then why the f
Re:No. (Score:5, Funny)
Can we just bomb Snooki, please?
Re: (Score:2)
stop demanding that we do something all the time
Wat? When was the last time anyone "demanded" the US' help, and even more to the point, when has the US ever listened? You only helped in WWII after Pearl Harbour.
Re:No. (Score:4, Funny)
Might want to look at the history of Lend-Lease as well as the previous "cash-and-carry" policy of the USA from 1940.
You might also note that the USA took part in escorting convoys full or war material to the UK and USSR before Pearl Harbor.
And google Reuben James sometime (hint: Halloween 1941 was BEFORE Pearl Harbor).
As to the point you thought you were making, noone declared war on us, and we weren't wrapped up in mutual defense pacts with people like Poland (which is what got the UK involved inn WW2), so why should we have gotten involved earlier? Because you can't beat the Germans alone is not, in and of itself, a reason for us to help you (though, as mentioned above, we did help you, just not by throwing bodies at your problem).
Re: (Score:3)
Might want to look at the history of Lend-Lease as well as the previous "cash-and-carry" policy of the USA from 1940.
You might also note that the USA took part in escorting convoys full or war material to the UK and USSR before Pearl Harbor.
And google Reuben James sometime (hint: Halloween 1941 was BEFORE Pearl Harbor).
As to the point you thought you were making, noone declared war on us, and we weren't wrapped up in mutual defense pacts with people like Poland (which is what got the UK involved inn WW2), so why should we have gotten involved earlier? Because you can't beat the Germans alone is not, in and of itself, a reason for us to help you (though, as mentioned above, we did help you, just not by throwing bodies at your problem).
You may also wish to look up history.
The US denied the sale (note sale, not giving nor lend lease) of it's oldest destroyers to England when Churchill requested them in 1939. The US did not get involved because it was politically inconvenient. Roosevelt believed that it would lose him the election.
The US flatly refused to get involved until after FDR was re-elected. It did not act until after it was attacked despite the Germans killing American civilians on several ships, the first deaths were on the
Damned if you do, damned if you don't (Score:5, Interesting)
The situation is complicated: Syria shares a huge border with Turkey, our most important NATO ally in the region. Israel is not that far away. Oil runs through and under Syria, most of it not actually bound for the US. We also kind of set a precedent in Libya that if rebels cry enough, and more importantly bleed enough, they can call in international support for free*. (Terms and conditions may apply.) Chemical weapons have also been used, but by whom is an open question.
The civil war in Syria has been a clusterfuck from the start. What began as peaceful protesters getting shot by security forces burgeoned into a full-blown revolution, with the Syrian army so hopelessly incompetent it can't even keep the equally incompetent rebels out of Damascus but equally powerful enough to keep them from winning. It's been a war of attrition for over two years now and shows no signs of stopping. The war would have ended a year ago if the rebels hadn't been given weapons by the West -- rebels that have been acknowleged to have links to every terrorist group you'd care to mention (this is more and less of a problem than you'd think: the terrorists also happen to be the only civilians in the Middle East trained to fight). Meanwhile Russia is giving Syria weapons too, so the whole thing is devolving into one of those Cold War African brush wars that were just proxy battles for foreign powers. It's kind of funny Obama decides now is the time to have moral outrage over the issue when Syria is not a signatory of the Chemical Weapons Convention, which means they can do whatever they want with the stuff. They're not breaking the law with chemical weapons. Chemical weapons are indiscriminate: everyone agrees how terrible nerve gas is but no one acted to stop Syria before they acquired one of the world's largest stockpiles of the stuff.
On a humanitarian front, things have been equally terrible: refugees have been overwhelming nearby countries and that's really pissing them off. The suffering has been tremendous.
Everyone agrees that the civil war has to end and soon, but no one is willing to do something to decisively end the stalemate. The US is proposing to resolve the question with military action, but as Congress has remarked, what good is an airstrike going to do if your end goal is regime change? They know that this is going to turn into something even bigger than Iraq, and even worse: Syria has allies. No one has really given diplomacy a chance, and all sides seem interested in letting Syria bleed even more while they hem and haw at the prospect of getting involved. The Saudis are even offering money to get this over with before oil prices rise to the point everyone switches to green power.
Now that the US has proposed military action it can't back down without being completely humiliated on the world stage, and Congress is very much aware of the decline of American influence. I would not be surprised if the airstrikes are authorized, with the condition that no troops be sent to the area. Turkey is more than willing to take the fight to the Syrians, I say let them: give aid to the French, Turkish and Israeli forces and just let them have at it.
Re: (Score:3)
I wish there was a modding method which would go ABOVE 5.
Re: (Score:2)
The cork will clearly be out of the bottle if Al Qaeda lay their hands on Sarin and distribute it to their network of Death-Cultists.
The Syrian government clearly has chemical weapons, but they are so far maintaining control over them (who actually made the attack still seems in question, which needs to be resolved factually, not emotionally).
The keystone is Assad and his supporters. Once he is no longer in charge it's all a crapshoot and we've seen how badly that can go in Iraq. Regardless if we have boo
Re: (Score:3)
The situation is really not that complicated:
1. The US is a NATO ally of Turkey, a close ally of Israel, and friendly with Jordan, as well as controlling the puppet government in Iraq. In other words, Syria is nearly surrounded.
2. Russia is a close ally of the Assad government.
3. Turkey and Israel really really want the US to remove Assad for them and replace him with a friendly regime.
4. Any overt action on the part of the US would force Russia into the fray on the other side, potentially kicking off WW II
Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't (Score:5, Informative)
However, had NATO done so, then Russia would have been forced to call in the entirety of the Warsaw Pact nations to defend Syria, again kicking on WW III.
You're a bit out of date there. The Warsaw Pact has ceased to be about 22 years ago.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't (Score:4, Interesting)
Syria needs help, not a beating. What you said is fine as far as it goes, but you don't talk about why civil war has erupted in Syria. If we don't understand or care about the causes, then whatever action we take, if any, is very unlikely to accomplish anything good.
Syria has had severe drought since 2006, possibly caused by Climate Change. They turned to irrigation from wells to wait out the dry spell, but that didn't buy them enough time. The water level dropped too low for more pumping. Crop failures are around 75% to 85%. Farmers had to do something. Many left their land and poured into the cities, where there were no jobs to be had. The Syrian government has done a terrible job of handling the crisis. Early in the drought, they sold a bunch of surplus wheat they had stored, wheat that they now desperately need to feed themselves. They treated farmers simply asking for help as subversive troublemakers, and have arrested many. That treatment is what touched off the violence.
For an outsider like the US to come in and start moralizing over chemical weapons, threatening to lob a few bombs, is no help at all. The Assad government should get the boot, but that's the least of Syria's problems. They're vicious and incompetent, but they didn't cause the mess though they certainly aggravated it immensely. Suppose the US could surgically strike so well that we completely destroy all the chemical weapons Syria has, without killing anyone, and we did that. The civil war would barely notice, and would rage on. Same if US strikes managed to kill Assad and break his government's hold on power. And same if we established a No Fly Zone. What the world should do is either take over, send lots of food to stabilize things, then get to work on more permanent solutions, or the world should mind its own business. Apart from the likely insurmountable problem of coming to a consensus on how to run Syria, the first course of action is very costly, so it's not happening. Trying to stop the violence with threats or even action is not going to work.
Regardless of what the world does in Syria, one problem we all should address is Climate Change.
FIne, but ..... (Score:4, Insightful)
As you even admit in your post, the drought in Syria was POSSIBLY caused by Climate Change. That's a theory, but there's no way to be sure. It could also just be one of the droughts that has plagued nations for centuries, at random times and places?
I'd agree with most of what you said, except your summary seems completely misplaced to me..... Turning the Syria crisis into just another reason the world needs to address Climate Change? Umm, no. For starters, Syria clearly mishandled the situation with their crops and farmers in a MASSIVE way. There's no excuse for creating a Civil War over the fact that there's a water shortage. Treating farmers coming to the cities for assistance as subversives and arresting them?? Yeah, THAT would really fly in most civilized parts of the world!
Climate Change or not, countries will have hardships and natural disasters .... It's just part of life. If they're incapable of handling them in an appropriate manner, they should expect uprisings and overthrows.
Re: (Score:3)
They warned us (Score:5, Funny)
They warned us that if I voted for McCain or Romney, we'd see an increasingly warmongering, jingoistic administration out to bomb Islamic nations that have never attacked us... and they were right!
Re: (Score:2)
I was also surprised to find out that Obama was indeed once considered to be the "anti-war" candidate [nytimes.com], but the truth is that foreign policy really took a backseat to domestic issues in the last two elections.
Re: (Score:2)
It's great to have an external enemy if you have domestic problems, but this is over in the area of being ridiculous.
Especially since there's already problems knowing who's good and who's bad.
It's not worth it to take action there, the only thing that shall be done is watch them to avoid surprises. If you shall bomb - then drop food bombs instead. That could be really confusing even for Putin since he won't be able to know how to answer that.
Re: (Score:3)
To be fair if you'd voted for either of those two the bombs would've started falling on Syria about 2 years ago (Well, less if it was Romney ofc). The fact it's taking this long is a testament to the fact Obama is at very least slightly less hotheaded than those two.
Good campaign slogan (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
They warned us that if I voted for McCain or Romney, we'd see an increasingly warmongering, jingoistic administration out to bomb Islamic nations that have never attacked us... and they were right!
They warned my Dad if he voted for Goldwater, we'd go to war. And they were right back then, too.
Unfortunately, this war also seems to have bipartisan support. They always seem like better ideas beforehand. Fortunately, it also has bipartisan opposition. Somehow, I'm actually on the same side as my Teabagger US Rep. That's a first. And my fundie father-in-law. Another first.
Wait, I gotta take back the US Rep first thing, he was with me on the NSA vote, too. That's two truffles.
I'm somewhat concerned that th
Re:They warned us (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
dunno about worse....more like similar. Almost as if someone else was in charge behind the scene.
Chemical Weapons Suck (Score:4, Insightful)
If you gas 400 children and many more other innocent adults, people should be lining up around the block to smack you in the mouth. Other nations should be ashamed of themselves for looking the other way.
Does it suck to get involved? Absolutely. Do we have a clear side we can support? Nope. Will it be messy? Absolutely.
I guess I feel an obligation and a duty to make sure no backwater leader feels weapons of mass destruction are an OK response to a regional conflict.
It's always somebody else's problem until it's not.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
How is it that the method of killing merits a greater response than the quantity of those killed? North Korea, for instance, kills tens of thousands of innocents per year and imprisions hundreds of thousands (most of whom die a slow and painful death of starvation and disease). I guess Kim is safe so long as he doesn't gas a few hundred?
Re:Chemical Weapons Suck (Score:5, Interesting)
The problem with chemical weapons is that they are the start of a slippery slope. Sarin -> VX -> (bio or nuclear). Chemical vs conventional is an arbitrary line, but one that is pretty well accepted internationally.
IF the UN weapons inspectors decide that the Assad regime was responsible for the chemical weapons use, then I think a punitive strike is reasonable. The goal would not be to help the rebels (I don't want the US involved in a civil war), but to punish the regime for using illegal weapons. I say this with the understanding that a US strike would not make things better - that isn't the goal, the goal is to prevent them from becoming worse in the future.
IF the UN weapons inspectors do not conclude that the Assad regime was responsible, then I would not support a strike.
If there is no strong response to the use of chemical weapons, then I would expect to see them used again and more extensively.
Some people will object that past US actions show that we are no better. I won't argue with that, but form where we are now (absent time machine) we need to figure out what the best response is NOW. With Russia blocking any UN action, I don't see any other way to discourage future use of chemical weapons, and eventually worse.
BTW: I support military action against ANY country that uses WMDs, even those that are nominally our allies.
BTW: I do NOT support drone strikes, invasions, target killings etc by the US or allies. If I knew how to stop them I would.
Re: (Score:2)
I seem to recall reading last week that the UN inspectors were there only to determine whether chemical weapons were used, and NOT to determine who used them.
So I don't think there's much chance of them deciding Assad did it, when they're already saying "not our job to determine who did it".
Re: (Score:2)
We could accept unlimited war. In that case though might the hundreds of thousands turn into millions, or even billions (for unlimited nuclear war)? The world tried to limit WMDs because horrific as conventional war is, we can now build weapons that are vastly worse.
If not here, where would you draw the line? If you want to stop conventional war, how would you do it?
Re: (Score:2)
Where (if anywhere) would you draw the line and support military action?
Re: (Score:2)
Its pretty clear they were used, but it would be nice to have the confirmed by an international body.
I was hoping that the weapons inspectors could also provide some information on the source of the weapons - it would be very nice to know that this wasn't a false-flag operation by a third party. I don't know if chemical analysis is good enough to limit the possible sources.
Re: (Score:2)
Deterrence is the only benefit.
Re: (Score:3)
Only rational people can be deterred. This is why deterrence fails so often in the Middle East. Not that there are no rational people there but just that they aren't in charge.
Re:Chemical Weapons Suck (Score:5, Insightful)
How is it that the method of killing merits a greater response than the quantity of those killed?
Your question is tantamount to "Why should war have rules?".
The rule against chemical weapons is simply a subset of "rules of war". These include rules for the treatment of POWs. Because of these standards, a lot of GIs came home from the European theater who otherwise wouldn't have. Likewise, it would have been a lot more convenient for the US to just neglect or gun down Axis POWs, or napalm the whole area during mop-up operations rather than accept surrenders. Etc, etc.
So. If war has rules, either you enforce them or war has no rules. Most reasonable powers, even some unreasonable powers like North Korea realize that a no-holds-barred street fight could lead to something like 20% survival rate with a bunch of unhealthy people trying to rebuild after victory vs. 90% survival after victory.
Aside from the cold rational incentive to follow rules of war, they are also deeply rooted in something like chivalry. At least, that's what the West calls it. The East and other areas have different names and different codes that historically allowed different things. For example, Japanese didn't view surrender as honorable during the WW2 era, and that caused a lot of problems. I'm not picking on Japan here. I'm simply pointing it out as an obvious difference between different cultures having different rules. I'm sure there are some rules the Japanese had for conduct in war that were kind and gentle in some way. One of the most universal rules of war used to be "don't kill women and children". Modern technology has made that impractical as an absolute; but the nature of chemical weapons is such that they can't be easily confined to the target zone.
Anyway, to answer your original question. It's because war has rules designed to limit its scope in various ways, and chemical weapons are outside those limits.
Re:Chemical Weapons Suck (Score:4, Insightful)
I saw some forum poster (probably at Fark) summarize it thusly:
The guys that made it out of WWI after the air bursting artillery, watching wave after wave of fellow humans get mowed down by machine guns, soggy trenches, bayoneting a few people, the screams of people dying on the wire in no-man's land, trench foot, disease, gangrene... the guys that made it through all that drew the line and said chemical weapons were too barbaric.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not feeling like you really answered that question. You are correct the Wars can have rules or "Conventions", but they are not always held to the strict standard and they tend to be between warring nations, not a warring nation.
As I have learned here, Syria did not sign the CW Ban Treaty thus they are not obligated to be held to an international rule they did not sign. If they used CW against another country there is a more compelling argument for action, a declaration of War and the establishment (or
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
(the anti american /. crowd can sharpen their mod knives, it's ok, I've got karma to burn)
This is my view as well. We used to take a moral stance against bad guys. Lately all we care about is ourselves. The ultimate hypocrisy is the large numbers of right wingers and conservative who were all jumped up to go into Iraq because of his "WMDs", because of how he treated his people, because it "was the right thing to do", etc etc. Simply put, America does not, or didnt use to, abide bullies.
And now, they are com
Re:Chemical Weapons Suck (Score:4, Informative)
Who was it that used chemical weapons in Syria? Back (3 months ago) when UN weapons inspectors were allowed to determine things like that, their conclusion was that it was the rebels (there have been many chemical weapons attacks there).
There's plenty of circumstantial evidence that the Syrian government used chemical weapons as well, but the only proven cases were uses against the Syrian government.
Ok, so we're going to bomb someone who was the victim of a chemical weapons attack because we think he retaliated in kind? This after Syrian allies went to the UN to get help rounding up the people we know used chemical weapons... and we blocked it. If there's truth to this narrative (which is significantly more documented by the UN and Russia than our government's story), we're way in the wrong here.
Re: (Score:2)
USA uses "agent orange" in Vietnam, quoteing wikipedia for results:
Agent Orange or Herbicide Orange (HO) is one of the herbicides and defoliants used by the U.S. military as part of its chemical warfare program, Operation Ranch Hand, during the Vietnam War from 1961 to 1971. Vietnam estimates 400,000 people were killed or maimed, and 500,000 children born with birth defects as a result of its use The Red Cross of Vietnam estimates that up to 1 million people are disabled or have health problems due to Agent Orange
And USA gets treated as last bastion of justice and freedom
Seems to me that chemical warfare is not the problem, but who is doing it.
Re: (Score:3)
Not just agent orange. US used too Napalm, white phosphorus, cluster bombs, drones and even killing for fun in civilian populations since WWII. They care so much about human rights that put children in guantanamo and tortured them. And the people behind all those almost genocidal operations have a bunch of medals, are still in command with big salaries (or have big returements) , schools/libraries/etc named after them and so on.
Over that, you have to question the motivations and the accuracy of the informa
Re: (Score:2)
Lives are important.
Some of us havent stopped trying to get the nation to look at it, do something.
Re: (Score:2)
If lives were important, we'd be in Africa solving poverty and treatable disease.
If they were important the US may even try to tackle those things within their own borders as well.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually we do have a fairly good chance of getting a favorable outcome, if we do it right. Assad had already started moderning his country "gradually adopting economic liberalization, neo-liberal and capitalist policies." These were meant largely for his personal benefit along witht he business class (not surprising really), BUT an economy opening up to capitalism and free market ideals is good for everyone involved. so when the people start seeing the personal benefit of this themselves, they start to wan
Poll Problem (Score:5, Insightful)
You realize that the "Where's Syria" option isn't exclusive with any of the others. :)
Who to bomb? (Score:2)
My suggestion would focus support on the refugees and finding out if any zones of sanity had formed
Re: (Score:2)
The solution to your alcoholic parent problem is to put them in foster care. :-)
Can we hand Syria to the French? heh
Probably not going to happen (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Probably not going to happen (Score:4, Interesting)
"Gridlock" isn't the issue here, the public isn't behind this action. It's looking increasingly likely that this resolution will be defeated in the Senate(which is controlled the Presidents party).
The House leadership has already said they will not bring a vote until after the Senate has voted. If the Senate votes "no" the House won't even bring this resolution up for a vote(as it will already be dead at that point).
Far from being "Gridlock" this is looking like this will be VERY direct action from the Congress. It just won't be what the President says that he wants. I do agree with you, his actions really suggests that he doesn't want to do this at all... and it's baffling to me why he would spend the political capital to try to push this issue when he really doesn't want to bomb them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Not that I support the Syrian gov, but its really not clear that it wasn't actually the rebels that deployed Sarin, rather the Syrian government.
Sarin is very easy to make in a basement compared to other nerve agents, but is at least 10x less effective and has a much shorter life compared to stuff most militarys would ultimately have access to.
If the government/military really wanted to release nerve gas, they would probably be much more likely to use something like Vx rather than Sarin (unless they were tr
A Scary Scenario (Score:2)
The US unilaterally attacks Syria with conventional bombs and missiles. Syria attacks Israel with conventional weapons, which has been mentioned as a possibility. Israel retaliates with conventional weapons, but with much greater force. Syria again attacks Israel with more force and this escalatio
I'm thinking... (Score:2)
this is all just an excuse to trigger a fight with Iran, which is what the US gov have been trying to find for ages.
Glass the whole subcontinent for all I care (Score:2)
Normally I'm all in favor of supporting revolutions against unjust regimes, and Assad's regime is clearly evil enough to be worth deposing. Libya? Egypt? We should have done more to help.
The problem with Syria is that the rebels seem equally evil. It seems to be more about sectarianism than equality, and the fact that one side is supported by Russia and the other by several terrorist groups certainly doesn't help.
Had we come in earlier, supporting the rebels while the movement could still be turned towards
Fucking Obama (Score:5, Interesting)
I voted for this jack ass so that this sort of shit (my country bombing other countries) would stop.
Silly me.
100,000 people killed (Score:4, Insightful)
and we do nothing... chems are used (we still don't know who) ,killing less than 1500 and we must "stop" him?
why would Assad, while winning the war risk getting the international community involved by using chems?
Re:should slashdot be asking if the U.S. should bo (Score:4, Insightful)
NO
Absolutely. Assad is terrible but the the Al Quaida supporting Muslim brotherhood is worse
Re:should slashdot be asking if the U.S. should bo (Score:5, Insightful)
We have a dedicated organization to handle such matters - UN. If UN reaches a conclusion that military operation is the only way to proceed and then turns to US to get military help, only then should US start to think about bombing anything or anybody.
Re: (Score:2)
Because ever since Woodrow Wilson, the U.S. uses moralistic arguments as rational for war in a lot of cases.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Who the fuck has given the USA to decide what's moral?
BTW : LOL. The USA bombs either to destroy Commies (50-80s) or Muslims (90-today) or to get oil.
Where were the morals in Ruanda or in Zagreb?
Was it moralistic to use Agent Orange or Napalm in 'Nam?
Was it moralistic to use weapons of mass destructions (freaking Nukes) in Japan? Totally unnecessary as the Japanese government already signalled to sign a peace treaty. Nooooo. don't haggle with the Japanese. Let'
Re:should slashdot be asking if the U.S. should bo (Score:5, Informative)
Was it moralistic to use weapons of mass destructions (freaking Nukes) in Japan?
Yes it was. (BTW the correct usage is "was it moral...?".)
Totally unnecessary as the Japanese government already signalled to sign a peace treaty. Nooooo. don't haggle with the Japanese. Let's incinerate hundred of thousands of them, destroy two cities and give millions cancer just to show who the biggest Penis has.
Spoken like someone who hasn't read enough history about those times. The Japanese soldiers were brutal, inhuman opponents. They were well known for their merciless and sadistic acts. After Pearl Harbor and what followed "haggling" with the Japanese was not an option. The requirement was unconditional surrender, which by the way has worked out very well since.
Nor were the consequences of Hiroshima and Nagasaki anything like what you portray... I wonder if you aware that the conventional attacks on Tokyo caused more loss of life...?
The USA has forever lost the right to use the word "Moral". Don't dare to use that word.
You are a fine example of the ignorance created by our current "educational" system. Like all countries, the US has its flaws. I defy you to name another country that's done as much for the betterment of humanity. I'm sure the hundreds of thousands of WW II American casualties are proud of you. Right?
Re:should slashdot be asking if the U.S. should bo (Score:5, Insightful)
Then, he up and smacks her, and starts hitting his kids. And then does it again. People yell at him from around the restaurant, but noone does anything else, and he smacks her again.
So, do I/we have a responsibility to stop the guy? I mean, the family spat is none of our business, right? But when he starts hitting the wife and kids and won't stop, don't we have to do something? It's not about taking sides or figuring out who's right or wrong in the spat or what the outcome for me personally would be, and I'm sure as hell not a cop, but I just have to stop it. Even if it means violence.
It's just the human thing to do.
Re:should slashdot be asking if the U.S. should bo (Score:5, Insightful)
You gonna fire cruise missiles at his ass, and take out all the innocent people at the surrounding tables?
Re: (Score:3)
The problem I have, is that this is happening 5000 miles away. Not my problem, let their neighbours deal with it.
Another thought, this is basically a religious war. You can't stop a religious war, you can only wait for it to burn itself out, and perhaps try to help those running away.
Lastly. Who elected the
Re:should slashdot be asking if the U.S. should bo (Score:5, Interesting)
I think I would be happy with Syria giving up its chemical weapons to international control.
Add more pee and grenades to your restaurant (Score:5, Funny)
Then, he up and smacks her, and starts hitting his kids. And then does it again. People yell at him from around the restaurant, but noone does anything else, and he smacks her again.
So, do I/we have a responsibility to stop the guy?
Well currently it looks like he's been hitting his wife and kids for quite some time, and nobody did intervene. But just right now, he has poured some unidentified liquid in the soup that the family has ordered, and *that* you consider over the top, because in your moral sense, it is fundamentally wrong to poison the very food that your family eats.
The restaurant's chef (his name is UN) passing by your table is still cautious because haven't seen yet if the man has actually *peed* in the soup, or just emptied a tap water bottle, and tries to calm you down.
But nonetheless you decide that the whole "probably peed on" soup incident was over the top, so you ready yourself to grab that grenade that you always carry in your bag for this purpose an throw it on the guy. In order to blow him up into pieces. While at risk that the grenade will tear the wife and kids into pieces too. And will probably hurt a few other tables around. (Not mentioning that the whole restaurant is going to become a place where everybody else is going to feel a little bit less comfortable). You see a friend called france on a neighbouring table who promise to put "likes" on the facebook photo album you plan to do about the incident. It's good because the few other friend you had around (including the big guy called Britain) are telling they are fed up with your facebook photo album boasting.
Meanwhile the man is still hitting his wife and kids. (Oh, did I mention that the wife is a member of some weird religious sect who encourage her to ritually bite of the genitals of all individual including her own kids ?)
While all this is happening, there have been fights around quite a few other table (like the one where the family is named Rwanda) but nobody actually cares. And by fight I mean that not only have the man started hitting his own wife and kids, but also move pn to stabbing them with all the available cutlery on the table and is trying to see if he can use something as a make-shift whip. But at least, thank god *he* didn't try peeing in the soup.
(You notice that you happen to be the owner of the shop selling the cutlery and make a mental notice to sell him a few more pieces because there's definitely some market for this).
Meanwhile while you were busy noticing all this around you, a friend on your table has discretely stolen your organiser and is methodically copying all the phone numbers of your mistresses. A waiter passing by notice it a tries to make you realise it. But all you do is start running after him trying to find a way to catch him and waterboard him (but hidden in the kitchen, not on your own table in front of your wife and kids).
A nice blond girl called Sweden is trying to distribute band-aid to all the hurt people.
Re: (Score:2)
"With great power comes great responsibility"
Re:should slashdot be asking if the U.S. should bo (Score:5, Informative)
(I take no credit for the following post, but I thought this was an interesting attempt to suss out the true rationale for U.S. military intervention in Syria. Whether or not you think intervention is warranted, I think most can agree that the government's rationale for intervention is pretty murky. )
This is from "Arguss" on reddit. Link to the original post (as well as his supporting links!) is here: http://www.reddit.com/r/TrueAskReddit/comments/1lw8yg/why_does_the_president_seem_so_personally/ [reddit.com]
I recommend you read it there instead since the formatting hasn't carried over well, but if you don't want to click-through:
"I've been reading through these comments, and I don't think any of them strike at the truth of the matter. I apologize if this seems blunt. Hereafter I will provide a detailed examination of US interest in Syria.
Realpolitik
refers to politics or diplomacy based primarily on power and on practical and material factors and considerations, rather than ideological notions or moral or ethical premises. In this respect, it shares aspects of its philosophical approach with those of realism and pragmatism.
Chemical weapons aren't why the president is interested in Syria. The US has actually been interested in helping the Syrian rebels for a long time. That last link is from the past few days, but they're all connected, which I'll get to.
The US has brought several motions to the UN. Things involving military force, military aid, or war in general are brought to the UN Security Council, a 12 member group consisting of 5 permanent members: US, UK, France, China, and Russia. The permanent members of the council have a special privilege: if any one of them vetoes a motion, it fails automatically. As I said, the US has brought several motions to the UN, which I linked above. All of them have failed, and all of them have failed because Russia (and China) have vetoed them using their veto powers.
So the US has long been interested in helping the Syrian rebels-- why is Russia concerned with vetoing efforts to help them? This is what it's all about: the politics of power. Realpolitik.
Syria, ruled by Bashar al-Assad (who functions basically as a dictator) is Russia's only ally in the Middle East region. The Russians sell a lot of arms to the Syrian government, and importantly the Russian's only naval base in the Mediterranean is based in Tartus, Syria. So, for geostrategic reasons alone, we can see that Russia is interested in keeping the friendly Syrian government in power. Though this isn't the Cold War, Russia is a competitor, so to some extent the US is interested in seeing the Syrian government fall because it would reduce the influence of a competitor in the region.
Another ally of Syria is Iran. You see, al-Assad is an Alawite-- a sect of Shiite Islam. Iran is majority Shiite Islam. The history is too long to recount here, but basically: Islam is divided into two major branches, Sunni and Shiite, which are not friends with each other. Iran and Syria are the only countries in the Middle East with Shiites in power, and Iran is the only country that actually has a majority of its citizens Shiites. It's in Iran's interest to keep the Syrian government in power, as they are the only other Shiite buddy in the region. This, too, is a reason why the US wants the Syrian government to fall; one of our longstanding goals is to remove the Iranian theocracy and prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. Removing a friend of Iran reduces their power and influence. Recently to this end of stopping Iran, the US has spent several years encouraging international adoption of economic sanctions against Iran.
Then, there is Israel to consider. Syria borders Israel to its north, and the two have had quite a lot of tension before; during the Six-Day War, Israel occupied the Golan Heights and effectively annexed it, in contravention of international law. The two have not been on good
Re: (Score:3)
I suspect the initial hope was that rebel forces would overwhelm the government with little to no support from the US. But in the last couple months that idea has fallen apart since Syrian gov't had managed to turn the tide of battle with some help from Russia.
It sounds to me like the administration latched onto the idea of Chemical Weapons as a precipitating event, since they could spin it as an act so terrible that moral conscience demanded intervention.
You need a moral excuse to go to war, something simp
Re: (Score:3)
To answer your question, in the words of Trey Parker...
America, FUCK YEAH!
Coming again, to save the mother fucking day yeah,
America, FUCK YEAH!
Freedom is the only way yeah,
Terrorist your game is through cause now you have to answer too,
America, FUCK YEAH!
So lick my butt and suck on my balls,
America, FUCK YEAH!
What you going to do when we come for you now,
it’s the dream that we all share; it’s the hope for tomorrow
Re:should slashdot be asking if the U.S. should bo (Score:5, Insightful)
If you really want to find some democracy, you should look in Switzerland. By some reason it is not so eager to send bombers to other countries, I wonder why that might be.
PS. Communism is not a danger at the moment, and socialism a la Sweden does not look so bad.
Re: (Score:3)
The US hasn't gotten worse. Anyone who thinks so is utterly ignorant of what went on behind the scenes during the Cold War (or any other time in US history).
The US has gotten more transparent -- not by choice of course, but because the internet has made dissemination of information much easier. And as a result, all of the "dirty tricks" and spying and whatnot have moved from the shadows into the light. Which makes the US look a lot worse, even though it's actually gotten less bad.
Re: (Score:3)
That veto power that you gloss over allows a small number of large powerful nations (including the US) to effectively paralyze the UN regardless of what the majority might actually think.
In this particular case, the position of the Arab League is far more relevant than the UN as these are the nations most directly affected.
Re:should slashdot be asking if the U.S. should bo (Score:4, Funny)
(Said with the greatest respect to anyone who isn't Australian or is Australian and didn't vote for Tory Tony).
Some of us are American. Careful where you throw that respect.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:De javu (Score:5, Interesting)
Germany's Intelligent Agency has already proved that Assad himself had nothing to do with it, although others in the chain had a finger in the button.
Of course, NSA's currently busy bugging our comms and they had no time to listen to Assad's own comms.
Re: (Score:3)
That's what I expected, Assad is evil as fuck but he's far from stupid, he knows that if he could keep the chemical weapons under control the US government would happily look the other way while he slaughtered his own people, but then his military got out of control and started using them. His recent offer to put the chemical weapons under international control is basically an admission that his military is running wild.
Re: (Score:3)
The evidence was never compelling before the Iraq war, it was the same old crew repeating that they have evidence over and over. Intelligence reports were doctored to make it look like there was evidence but no real evidence ever existed.
It's the same here, the so called leaders say there is evidence so many times people believe it, but there isn't anything that would stand up in court.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd rather hang out at the bar with Cowboy Neal and get bombed.
Re: (Score:3)
So your solution to the killing of civilians is killing even more civilians?
Re: (Score:3)
Wouldn't a nihilist bomb nothing?
Re:Nihilists unite (Score:5, Funny)
Wouldn't a nihilist bomb nothing?
What? And destroy all that they believe in?
Re: (Score:3)
While I am an American against the bombing... pray tell... where exactly in Syria is this largess of oil you speak of?
Iran.. Syria has a defense pact with Iran, any defense of Syria by Iran will allow the US to invade Iran.
Iran has become peaceful and attempts to stir up a revolution or a direct war have failed. The embargoes have also failed as Iran still trades with China.
If you think this is far fetched you have not looked up just how much oil and gas is in Iran. That little country has more than 15 times the gas reserves the entire US does, that's the biggest gas field in the world. Meanwhile the US is poisoning their
Re: (Score:3)
I know this is a hot topic but it's a bit political for slashdot isn't it?
There's a comment and rating system. Everything is political, duh.