The anti-war sentiments.

[Hayabusa]

I don't agree with you about this one bit, that has to be clear. I believe that a use of chemical warfare is something that should be punished, no matter who it is that does it.

The main point, however, that I'm posting here to make is how I think all of this sentiment is effected by the past. In 2003, George W. Bush pushed strongly for war in Iraq using their (non-existent) chemical and biological weapon capabilities as their cassus belli. The majority of us then knew that this was bullshit and watched in horror as enough people ate it right up.

I was reminded of that in a post the other day, when someone said that those lies have tainted every inch of this whole proceeding. I have heard theories of it being a false-flag operation by the rebels, when that isn't all that likely, and that previous reports months prior told of Assad arming chemical weapons. I have seen people compare Sec. Kerry's speeches to Gen. Powell's, and I have to be honest and say that went through my mind as well.

Thanks to Bush's lies, this atrocity may very well go unpunished, or make the operation extremely unpopular, as it clearly appears to be already.

So, that's my theory on this. Feel free to blast it full of holes.

[el_bryanto]

1. You may well be right - but consider

Is the problem that the United States is no longer willing to invest in this sort of action? Or that Bush through his actions drove a nail through the United Nations that means it can't act in this matter or any other?

Who's responsibility should it be to deal with this kind of atrocity?

Bryant

[Hayabusa]

2. As for the last,

I personally feel that it's the entire civilized world's responsibility.

As to your first question, that's a little difficult to answer. The main issue with the UN is that the security council will always be hopelessly deadlocked, in my opinion. As for if the US is no longer willing to invest in it, I believe that we as a country are truly weary of war, and rightfully so, and that this could very well be a detriment to causes that could be just.

[Precisely]

3. So that makes it right

"I believe that a use of chemical warfare is something that should be punished, no matter who it is that does it."

By who?
How is this different than other atrocities that "should be punished"?
Is U.S. still Policeman of the World?

[Hayabusa]

5. In a way, yes.

Atrocities and violations of the laws of war should be punished by the civilized world as a whole, the United States included, so yes, that does kind of make us the policeman of the world. Well, at least one of them. In an ideal world, this is no different than any atrocity that should be punished, but it isn't an ideal world. The truth is, this is a heinous and highly visible one, in a nation that the world is watching. There's no way that this one can be swept under the rug like others have sadly been. If this action is left to slide, then the rules of war are destroyed even more after what Bush did to them and Obama continues to some extent.

[Precisely]

7. This should not be an arbitrary action. By one nation. Blamed on one man.

[bowens43]

16. war mongering bullshit pure and simple.its this kind of thinking that perpatrates attrocitiies

[Hayabusa]

39. I am for punishing atrocities, not perpetuating them.

I don't believe myself to be a war-monger just because I think that this action is the right thing to do. I hated the Iraq War and Afghanistan and I certainly don't want this to be a prolonged campaign.

[Mnemosyne]

26. And whom will punish the US? Profound hypocrisy, imho. nt

[defacto7]

36. The world should police the world.

If we act alone, it's against the will of that civilized world you talk about. One great problem that has been propagated in more recent times by Bush etc. is the tidy separation that the US war policies have caused between ourselves and the rest of the world. If the will of the civilized world was to bomb Syria, then that is what it would do. But the world for the most part has condemned it, our allies have decided against it. What makes the US government's judgment of more value than the rest of the world, let alone the majority of the citizens of the US?

I do believe it's one of the biggest conundrums the US has ever had to face. There are no fixes for the problem in Syria. It is the culmination of hundreds of years of balance and failure that have been thrashed to hell in the last decade. There is nothing bombs will do to fix that.

[Hayabusa]

38. That is the great conundrum about this whole thing, isn't it?

[The Straight Story]

11. Who else do you suggest? Lesotho? Peru? Nigeria?

France is on board and will help, same with Israel and Australia.

The US has the means and the ability (UK does not even have an aircraft carrier right now), very few in the world have the ability and those that do (Russia for example) are either on our side in the whole issue or oppose it because they back assad.

We have great power and thus great responsibility.

[Precisely]

13. Yes

"We have great power and thus great responsibility."


How is this different than other atrocities that "should be punished"?

[The Straight Story]

17. Which ones?

The congo? The UN has control of that situation already (not a very good control.....).

How many others are using chemical weapons and what message does it send to every other country on the planet if we just shrug off their use?

We have troops all over the world what is to deter people from using chemical weapons against them if we say we don't care what people use?

We tried to intervene in Syria over the years, but russia and china vetoed our last attempt. We have tried diplomacy, failed. It is not like Syria just popped up on our radar (though it has online to many people).

A couple of good time lines:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-14703995

http://www.neontommy.com/news/2013/08/timeline-chemical-weapon-reports-syria

And a history of Syria from the BBC worth watching:

[Precisely]

23. Precisely

[Hayabusa]

28. Every single bit of this leads to

the massive botch that Britain made of the region after the World Wars, doesn't it?

[polly7]

42. Oh FFS. nt.

[Warpy]

4. There's another component

They were sold these nerve gas weapons as the poor country's nuke, a perfect deterrent to expansionist neighbors.

Now they're told they weren't supposed to use them?

That's some catch, that catch 22.

Throwing bombs at every civil war turned nasty will keep the MIC up to their earlobes in mink and caviar, but it won't do anything constructive.

It will nicely whip up more hatred of the US.

[Hayabusa]

6. I will agree that they should never have been sold to begin with.

Yet, this is not a perfect world. They were sold, wrongly, but they were actually used.

And I'm not proposing at throwing bombs at every civil war. I don't even think we should take an official side save for "No more of these toys for you, Assad."

[99Forever]

8. So you have absolute, iron clad proof...

.. of who perpetrated this chemical weapons attack?


Great. Post it, 'cuz you would be the very first to do so.


When you complete that task, please explain EXACTLY and SPECIFICALLY what positive effects the United States getting into a Middle Eastern War without end wiil have and how to go about achieving them.

BTW, have you, your spouse and all of your children enlisted and volunteered for duty on the front lines WHEN that happens?

[Hayabusa]

10. Yes, everyone who supports military action must be in the military.

Please, continue with that line of thinking. Besides, with as fat and slow and bad cardio as I am, I'd be a shit soldier.

I don't have proof other than what's been said so far. That the only country doubting this seriously being Syrian ally Russia is kind of damning as well.

[99Forever]

27. What planet are you on?

Congrats, you've made the most Ridiculous Post of the Evening.

"That the only country doubting this seriously being Syrian ally Russia is kind of damning as well."

Precisely how countries are joining us on Barack's Limited, Bombing Isn't REALLY War adventure?

[Hayabusa]

30. I meant

"The only country that has seriously put forward the notion that this was a false flag was Syrian ally Russia." My mistake for not being as clear as I should have been.

[99Forever]

40. Ahh I see.

Only "countries" are allowed to express their view of this.

(And btw, that statement is a fucking lie anyway, not that it matters to those busy pounding the war drum.)

Generals gathered in their masses
Just like witches at black masses
Evil minds that plot destruction
Sorcerers of death's construction
In the fields the bodies burning
As the war machine keeps turning
Death and hatred to mankind
Poisoning their brainwashed minds
Oh lord yeah!

Politicians hide themselves away
They only started the war
Why should they go out to fight?
They leave that role to the poor

Time will tell on their power minds
Making war just for fun
Treating people just like pawns in chess
Wait 'til their judgement day comes
Yeah!

Now in darkness world stops turning
Ashes where the bodies burning
No more war pigs have the power
Hand of God has struck the hour
Day of judgement, God is calling
On their knees the war pig's crawling
Begging mercy for their sins
Satan laughing spreads his wings
Oh lord yeah!

War Pigs (Songwriters: F. IOMMI, W. WARD, T. BUTLER, J. OSBOURNE)

[Hayabusa]

41. Love that song.

Also, if I am mistaken on Russia being the only nation to front the false flag theory (other than the Syrian government, I thought that would be kind of obvious) I stand corrected. Russia is the only nation that I have heard of that has officially backed that theory.

As to whether or not only countries are allowed to express their view of this, I am attempting to talk about the world politics of this all as a whole. Of course individuals are free to believe whatever they wish regarding who fired the shot and I did not mean to imply otherwise.

[99Forever]

43. And then you promptly dismiss that which you don't like.

Reminds me very much of having this same exact argument with warmongering assholes with R's behind their names in '02. I note you STILL haven't answered a single one of my questions. I guess that shows where you really stand.

With the chickenhawks.

[Hayabusa]

45. Which questions have I not answered?

You asked me what proof I personally have: I have none but what has been presented to the public at large, minus a couple of them because I'm not quite as news-literate as I should be.

You asked what positive consequences bombing missions in Syria could achieve: I answered, but admittedly not in a direct reply to you, that there aren't that many, save for strengthening the law against the use of chemical weapons. I did admit that this could very well bite us in the ass later on.

You asked whether I would join the military since I'm so pro-war. I considered this a ridiculous question and responded in kind.

As for dismissing opinions that I don't like, I don't feel that is true. Your point is valid. I am sick of war and I find it horrible that we've been at war for about 12 of my 29 years. That said, just because your point is valid doesn't mean that I can't disagree with it. And vice-versa.

[lumpy]

25. Snark doesn't isn't an argument, just snark.

[99Forever]

35. I agree.

But legitimate questions aren't "snark," they are legitimate questions and someone calling the "snark" doesn't change that. I know the game, try to belittle anyone that lays the reality out in front of you and you ZERO legitimate responses to legitimate.

Maybe you have some legitimate answers? Step up to the plate and take a swing.

I'm betting you have nothing.

[LanternWaste]

85. Seems no one has anything other than petulant editorializing

"Maybe you have some legitimate answers?"

Seems no one has anything other than petulant editorializing, and labeling those who disagree with their position as either "chickenhawks" or "peace purists" depending on which particular dogma one chooses to accept.

(Insert rationalization here)

[delrem]

9. If bombing yet another country satisfies your feeling of US self-righteousness

then under D's or R's you've got the gov't you want.

Just don't look at your own countries' record - that might be upsetting.

[Hayabusa]

12. I don't feel self-righteous about this at all

In fact, I am scared of the ramifications of it. It could very well lead to a third World War if everything goes to hell. Yet, I feel obligated to say that this can't go unpunished.

And I have looked at the US's record. A lot of our policy in the last sixty years have come back to bite us in the ass. I have no doubt that this might as well.

[reformist2]

19. 'Teaching people a lesson' is an obnoxious and surefire way to escalate a conflict.

[Precisely]

21. "Yet, I feel obligated to say that this can't go unpunished."

If only there were more facts than feelings about this.

[Hayabusa]

24. All right

I believe that a use of a chemical weapon against civilians is in violation of the Geneva Code and considered to be a crime against humanity. The offending regime can be tried by the Hague for this offense. It also is generally a valid cassus belli against said regime as well.

Those are facts, not feelings. It is my feeling that this is a CB that should be acted upon by an allied force including the United States, targeting launch sites and potential store houses of the chemical agent.

[Precisely]

29. Well put

We'll see where the support is for "an allied force including the United States"

[Hayabusa]

33. I hope that it isn't just us.

It seems that France is leaning towards action as well. Maybe Australia as another poster here wrote. Haven't studied up on their reactions to this.

[Mnemosyne]

32. Again I ask, who will punish the US? Fallujah. nt

[Hayabusa]

37. Bush should have been thrown in a cell

back in 2003. Too bad no country had the balls to do anything about it.

[Mnemosyne]

44. Not even ours would. Still, how would you feel if another country decided we should be punished,

as many are suggesting we punish Syria, for what we have done too many times and started bombing the hell out of our country?

[Hayabusa]

46. I pray they stay that the bombs stay the hell away from my town.

I would feel outraged, to tell the truth. Even though, I would likely know that any military action could be justified, it would still be my country under attack. I'd wonder why they didn't just send a special forces team to kidnap the leaders responsible.

Nice question.

[Mnemosyne]

82. We would be the "insurgents" and would fight tooth and nail to send them packing.

Too bad it's never that simple, isn't it?

'Do unto others...' is a good motto to live by.

[delrem]

49. Too bad the US doesn't have the moral integrity to do it.

But that doesn't stop US citizens, like you, from propagandizing for another war.
As if you had any moral credibility at all.

[Hayabusa]

51. I am expressing my opinion on this issue,

not "propagandizing." As for my moral credibility, just because I disagree with you doesn't make me immoral.

[delrem]

54. You aren't the USA. I make the distinction, so cut the crap (the propaganda that skews words)

[Hayabusa]

55. I never claimed to be.

I am just a citizen of this nation saying what I believe it should do. Everyone is free to disagree with me and it's been a very interesting debate so far.

[delrem]

56. Too bad the Syrian people aren't so "free" to vote for/against a US bombing.

But you, a representative of a morally bankrupt nation, think you are.

[Hayabusa]

57. They didn't vote to be gassed, either.

Of course, this all leads to one of the cruelest ironies of war: sometimes you kill the people you were trying to save.

[delrem]

63. No, and they didn't vote for the "Friends of Syria" to come "liberate" them.

I like the anguish you express with "one of the cruelest ironies of war: sometimes you kill the people you were trying to save.", but I don't think you, an american who 100% promotes this fucking WoT as it slowly evolves, have a clue who you're "trying to save". And you never did.

I do think that you, as an american, know that you're 100% safe, unthreatened in any way, so that for you, at most, warmaking is a pleasant and very lucrative hobby. Of course it's more than that to the heavy hitters of the MIC. And it makes for orgasm producing fireworks.

[Hayabusa]

66. I never promoted the War on Terror, only this.

Like I said; Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, C. Rice, Powell, Rove et.al deserve to be sitting in a cell in the Netherlands right now.

As for warmaking being a hobby, the only way that's true for me is the grand strategy games on my computer and the two Panzer IV's I painted yesterday sitting on my desk.

[delrem]

68. The "this" you're promoting is a continuation of the WoT.

[Hayabusa]

70. I have a feeling that any conflicts in the ME for the next century

will have their origins in the War on Terror. Yeah, we fucked up that region worse than it already was.

[delrem]

75. Yet you want to fuck it up even more. For shame!

[Hayabusa]

78. Personally, I believe that any action

or inaction that the world takes on this will mess it up more than it is.

[delrem]

79. And you, not because you're a self-righteous american or anything,

just want a good old-fashioned "punishment bombing" done.
way to go Hayabusa.

I think we've had the issue out enough and limits have been reached. g'day.

[delrem]

47. You deny that you're self-righteous.

You deny that you're self-righteous, yet you describe your "vote" to bomb, unique to you as an american, in a grotesquely self-righteous way.

[Hayabusa]

50. So,

believing that breaches of the laws of war should be punished and voicing that opinion is being self-righteous?

[delrem]

59. You didn't just "voice your opinion (that breaches of the laws of war should be punished)"

You supported US President Barrack H. Obama's statement that the USA has the moral duty (and it goes without saying, the moral credibility) to be the world's enforcer of international law (as the USA recognizes it, judge, jury and executioner).

What you're doing, my friend, is promoting another US war action against yet another country, after the US has been conducting illegal war actions (kinetic actions (tm-bho)) against multiple countries in the same region, and *using the moral credibility of the USA to justify it*. And then, when called on it, you deny that you're making that argument.

Throughout, you absolve yourself of any base motivations like self-righteousness, even when those are your prime motivators.

[Hayabusa]

61. I say the world has the moral duty

to be the enforcer of international law, the US being part of that. I focus on the US because that is where the majority of us here on the website live. Call it ethnocentrism if you will.

[delrem]

65. So that's why you support Pres. Obama for ignoring the security council.

To say nothing of world opinion.

And I call what you're promoting here "jingoism".
Not just jingoism, but jingoism of the very worst kind, the jingoism of a population that feels absolutely secure from *any* retribution.

[Hayabusa]

67. The Security Council has historically been deadlocked

on almost anything of any real importance. Yes, that's a slight exaggeration, but it does get the point across.

[delrem]

69. No it hasn't.

[Hayabusa]

71. And that is what I get for continuing this for two hours.

Apologies.

[delrem]

74. OK. Recall, the security council authorized (limited) NATO action against Libya.

And that was the *immediately previous* US war. Where, of course, the US continued bombing once it started, and went far beyond the limited engagement specified. And that would give a normal person a clue.

[Hayabusa]

76. Can you give me a link

where I can peruse this tomorrow, please?

[delrem]

77. do it on your own time.

[tazkcmo]

62. Why is the only punishment available bombs?

How many bombs fell on Hussein? Bin Laden? None. I'm thinking we have the capability, motivation and experience to "punish" Assad with a small group of SF types or something. Or sanctions. Or freezing assets. I don't know. But the ONLY possible solution I've heard ANY discussion about is BOMBS and even some of those that are in favor of military strikes admit they probably won't accomplish much. Now we've got Russia saying they'll bomb Saudi Arabia if we bomb Syria. Just friggin dandy.

Involve the Arab League. Let THEM get their hands dirty. Or does it HAVE to be the US that does it? Do our bombs hurt more than the same bombs but dropped by different countries? You show me a boat load of countries agreeing with our government, especially the ones that never agree with us about anything, and I'll accept it. Not like it but accept it. But all I've heard and seen is BOMB BOMB BOMB. Screw that.

[Hayabusa]

64. That, in all reality, is likely the best way.

Get your special forces teams and operatives and raid/destroy key targets, detaining Assad himself if at all possible. The main reason why a lot of people here, myself included, are saying "bomb" is because that's been the language that the government has been using regarding this.

[bowens43]

14. you are absolutely wrong. the US has no right or reason to attack syria the past is irrelevent.

We are not the cops of the world and only an arrogant fool could think that we should be doling out punishments. There is no difference between a cruise missle and chemical weapons.one is not morally superior to the other

[Hayabusa]

20. In a way, you are right.

People are just as dead regardless of whether or not they were killed by missiles or chemical weapons. That said, the rules that have drafted and accepted by a majority of the world have banned one (especially on civilians) and not the other. If Assad had used a conventional weapon on a rebel stronghold, I would have no major problem with it. That's simply war. Chemical weapons, on the other hand, targeting civilians? Why shouldn't that be considered wrong? Why shouldn't that act be considered so abhorrent that it can't be allowed to happen again? Because some idiot wanted to get revenge on some dictator that planned to kill his daddy?

And I stated before that I don't believe that the US should be alone on this: every country should see this for what it is and stop it from happening again.

[FarCenter]

15. "no matter who it is that does it" -- so it doesn't need to be the United States, does it.

[Hayabusa]

22. That was actually referring to the perp. of the attack, not the punisher.

Sorry for the confusion.

[markiv]

18. they talk and talk and talk about 'American Credibility'

yet, they seem to not give a damn that they have no credibility with the American Citizen

'how dare these peasants question us!?!?!?'

[Sand Wind]

31. +10 nt

[delrem]

81. Figures. But shouldn't you be out searching for subjects of more pro-war OPs??

[Nevernose]

34. It's not just that

Although I won't deny that that's a part of it.

Bush alone didn't do anything: it took thousands of people aligned with the same goals and tunnel vision. Most of those people are still employed by the federal government. The idea that in the 21st century we can just "blame Obama" is ludicrous. It takes a lot of people fucking up over a period of years to get to this point.

More importantly, it's not just the last ten years in question. A decade is a drop in the bucket. It's the dead babies in Kuwait; it's the invasion of Grenada by Cuba; it's the "retaliatory" strike on Libya in '86; it's the Gulf of Tonkin; it's the Maine; it's a Lusitania secretly loaded with minitions; it's striking miners in Idaho; it's American Indians ghost dancing.

This is a pattern going back more than a century, and the number of times the casus belli has been bullshit far outnumbers the Pearl Harbors or Acts of Seccession.

[Hayabusa]

48. A great thinker once said "War. War never changes."

Actually, that was Ron Perlman in Fallout, but still. Bullshit justifications for war have and will always outweigh the legitimate ones. The main problem is trying not to become jaded and mistake a legitimate one for BS.

[gopiscrap]

52. I am agaisnt the war!!!

couldn't we do economic sanctions

[Hayabusa]

53. The problem with economic sanctions

is that they really don't work in the long run and end up hurting the civilians of the country, not the regime.

[backscatter712]

58. How is blowing more shit up going to stop the use of chemweapons?

It's Kabuki War Action Theater, with the newest in special effects!

It's a fireworks show designed to show the plebes around the world that we're Punishing Assad for those chemical weapons.

And in the end, Assad will still have his sarin shells, countless thousands more people in Syria will die in the civil war, and either Assad will put the rebellion down, or the rebellion will win and another psychopath will take the throne. And the chem weapons.

But Boy, We Will Have Showed Him! We saw the missile nosecam footage on CNN!

[Hayabusa]

60. I certainly hope that doesn't happen.

[HardTimes99]

72. I thought of Back to the Future:

[Hayabusa]

73. ROFL

[Hayabusa]

80. I started this thread about two hours ago

and I knew that it certainly would get some discussion going. I feel kind of bad that it's mainly focused on the first part of rather than the second half as I had hoped it would, but I knew that had a possibility of happening. I'd like to say that it was nice debating you all tonight and I admire your passion on this subject.

What I had hoped for in this thread would be for people to think about how George W. Bush's lies about Iraq in 2003 will forever change how we as liberals and Democrats think about justifications of war. It will always be looked upon with suspicion. "He has to be lying, it was just like General Powell with the yellow cake sample." "This is Iraq 2.0!" I grew concerned because I saw a lot these statements over the past few days.

Now, however, I'm getting tired. It's 11:19 where I live and I've been up since 5:30 in the morning. I'm going to bed. I'd be more than happy to continue the debate tomorrow if all of us feel up to it.

Goodnight, DU.

Hayabusa

[Capt. Obvious]

83. The run on sentences are killing me

[cali]

84. not for me. I judge this in the entire context of our role in the middle east

btw, what do you think of the numerous U.S. atrocities that have gone "unpunished"?

[Hayabusa]

86. I mentioned this before in the thread

I think the people who committed them should be in jail, but no one had the balls to do it.

[cali]

87. why shouldn't the U.S. have been punished by the international community?

[Hayabusa]

88. As I said, we should have.

Yet, I don't think that Assad will stand idly by and allow himself to be arrested as Bush et al would have. As someone in here said before, special forces teams would likely be the ideal solution.