General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsA significant achievement of the human race: It succeeded in banning chemical weapons.
Last edited Thu Sep 5, 2013, 12:53 PM - Edit history (1)
This should be considered a worthwhile global agreement. It should be seen as WORTH preserving...WORTH keeping in place.
Why did people all over the world come together to agree to ban chemical weapons?
Long before the protest songs of Vietnam, there were poems of WW1.
Dulce Et Decorum Est
Bent double, like old beggars under sacks,
Knock-kneed, coughing like hags, we cursed through sludge,
Till on the haunting flares we turned our backs
And towards our distant rest began to trudge.
Men marched asleep. Many had lost their boots
But limped on, blood-shod. All went lame; all blind;
Drunk with fatigue; deaf even to the hoots
Of disappointed shells that dropped behind.
GAS! Gas! Quick, boys!-- An ecstasy of fumbling,
Fitting the clumsy helmets just in time;
But someone still was yelling out and stumbling
And floundering like a man in fire or lime.--
Dim, through the misty panes and thick green light
As under a green sea, I saw him drowning.
In all my dreams, before my helpless sight,
He plunges at me, guttering, choking, drowning.
If in some smothering dreams you too could pace
Behind the wagon that we flung him in,
And watch the white eyes writhing in his face,
His hanging face, like a devil's sick of sin;
If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood
Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs,
Obscene as cancer, bitter as the cud
Of vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues,--
My friend, you would not tell with such high zest
To children ardent for some desperate glory,
The old Lie: Dulce et decorum est
Pro patria mori.
---Wilfred Owen---
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)
Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)
Octafish
(55,745 posts)In Fallujah, We the good guys used white phosphorous.
If we'd like to talk about WMD in detail, we need to consider depleted uranium.
Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)My understanding is that the use of white phosphorous as an incendiary weapon is legal, provided it's not used in close proximity to civilian areas, whereas chemical weapons (which I presume is a technical term in this context, since all weapons are made of chemicals) are banned outright.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)We sure looked the other way when Saddam was using mustard gas against Iran.
Then there are all the other WMDs and atrocious weapons we either use, stockpile, or let our friends get away with using.
Don't get me wrong, I agree that it's a good thing the international community has largely agreed to ban these weapons, but it means very little when the largest militaries in the world can use them with impunity.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)Octafish
(55,745 posts)
Veteran's Day Poppy
I cry but I can't buy
Your Veteran's Day poppy
It don't get me high
It can only make me cry
It can never grow another
Son like the one who warmed me my days
After rain and warmed my breath
My life's blood
Screamin' empty she cries
It don't get me high
It can only make me cry
Your Veteran's Day poppy
-- Don Van Vliet (Capt. Beefheart)
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)This is about regime change.
And the army will need troops, so when exactly are you enlisting? I promise the finest chem gear and training.
blm
(113,071 posts).
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)That's for starters.
And that we sold the Mustard Gas Iraq used in the 1980s to Iraq, and we were planning to use it in 1945 during the invasion of the home islands.
You are looking at the surface layer of the onion, dig a little, it's not pretty.
I guarantee it, it's not about chemical weapon use. That is the excuse. We have been looking for regime change since 1998
blm
(113,071 posts)and IranContra, and BCCI, and CIA drugrunning and armsdealing? I certainly posted thousands and thousands of posts here referencing those operations and anyone familiar with those operations also knows who did the most to EXPOSE those operations - Kerry. ; )
Kerry and Obama are NOT seeking this for BushInc. They did not manufacture intel here, they did not sell the chemicals and weaponry used, they are not lying about the events that occurred. They are the ones, especially Kerry for 8 years, who have sought to prevent the war hawks from getting the war they wanted in Syria. No one has done more than Kerry to stop the use of force. Arab Spring changed Assad.
Now Obama and Kerry are being smeared as warmongerers and their hands are being tied BECAUSE of years of lies.
People here are quick to believe that MIC changed Kerry's and Obama's position on Syria, while refusing to see the basic TRUTH as to why THEY are now at this point - Arab Spring changed Assad.
polly7
(20,582 posts)After initially insisting that Syria give United Nations investigators unimpeded access to the site of an alleged nerve gas attack, the administration of President Barack Obama reversed its position on Sunday and tried unsuccessfully to get the U.N. to call off its investigation.
The administration’s reversal, which came within hours of the deal reached between Syria and the U.N., was reported by the Wall Street Journal Monday and effectively confirmed by a State Department spokesperson later that day.
In his press appearance Monday, Secretary of State John Kerry, who intervened with U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon to call off the investigation, dismissed the U.N. investigation as coming too late to obtain valid evidence on the attack that Syrian opposition sources claimed killed as many 1,300 people.
The sudden reversal and overt hostility toward the U.N. investigation, which coincides with indications that the administration is planning a major military strike against Syria in the coming days, suggests that the administration sees the U.N. as hindering its plans for an attack.
http://www.zcommunications.org/in-rush-to-strike-syria-u-s-tried-to-derail-u-n-probe-by-gareth-porter.html
And, not everyone agrees with the facts put forth on who actually used the gas, not by a long shot.
http://www.zcommunications.org/how-intelligence-was-twisted-to-support-an-attack-on-syria-by-gareth-porter.html
blm
(113,071 posts)Perhaps they were prepared to strike quickly, but, that article reaches for conclusions that just aren't there.
They certainly didn't write that article with the intention of being accurate or showing any reliance on context.
polly7
(20,582 posts)I guess 
blm
(113,071 posts)Would you prefer I take the word of the article you presented when I did not see the inclusion of basic historic context specifically in regard to Syria?
He rushed to claim this was just like Bush did in Iraq, yet, failed to consider that the figures involved now, Obama and, especially Kerry, have worked hard in substantive ways to pursue diplomatic solutions in Syria. Is Porter of the mind that Bush worked through diplomatic channels for even 8 days to prevent use of force in Iraq the way Kerry worked for 8 years to prevent use of force in Syria? Did Obama manufacture the intel presented as evidence, or create the videos of chemical attack victims?
When Porter chooses to see the WHOLE of it and then write his piece, then I guarantee I will consider his observations deserving of greater attention.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)And if you think this is only about WMDs I have the Island of Manhattan for sale.
Regardless, we launch, we will be in breach of International law. So, how does our breaking Int Law make this better?
And yes, the Arab spring is part of this, it also changed SA, who has offered to pay the bills. Why do you think the Saudis are willing to pay for this? (It's about the spice)
blm
(113,071 posts)and where the original IMPETUS for full invasion of Syria has been coming.
But, the claim that so many have latched onto here is that Kerry and Obama are doing this for MIC, which just isn't true.
BTW - why do YOU have access to documents and testimony to better understand what BushInc has been up to in that region for so many decades? Because Kerry made it possible with his own dogged investigations of those operations. Now, you so easily believe that he is lying here, when he was the one person who worked the hardest to keep Assad on a peaceful, measured path since 2005 and from losing his grip on reality during and after the Arab Spring?
Kerry would NOT be for this without studied reasons, which, I am certain have more to do with Assad's mental state and the likely results from those miscalculations. And I do not believe Obama is acting for any imperial reasons, either.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)And we have been involved in this mess from early on.
You might want to believe in their better natures, it's a belief, that's all.
Have a good day
blm
(113,071 posts)of these covert operations because of Kerry's efforts.
Now, you want him smeared and kicked to the curb because he sees there is a need to enforce the ban on chemical weapons.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Fact one, Syria was slated for regime change as early as 1998, nothing you can say to change that fact.
Fact two, the US and western powers have been involved in training the FSA from early in in both Turkey and Jordan, including US forces.
Fact three, the Saudis did indeed offer to pay for the whole thing. You think it's because of humanitarian concerns or most likely a pipeline?
Fact four, they have been mulling humanitarian corridors from early days both along the Jordanian and Turkish Borders. Nobody is willing to do that, yet, since it is not politically feasible. It is a selling of it issue.
Fact five, both sides (assuming for a second there are only two sides) have committed horrific crimes.
Fact six, this is not just about WMDs. It is the excuse. I am glad it worked with you.
blm
(113,071 posts)I said Kerry and Obama were NOT part of the push for war in Syria since 1998, and that there is plenty of proof of the exact opposite, especially with Kerry's 8 years of efforts with Assad because he SAW the push the hawks and neocons were making that targeted Syria.
Why is that so difficult for you to acknowledge?
Obama and Kerry aren't being driven to war by the hawks, but are striving for an outcome where Assad is not the one they are relying on to bring Syria to the diplomatic solutions. He lost it. He was almost there before the Arab Spring and he lost his grip.
Why does it HAVE to be more to you? Obama, and, especially Kerry fought off the full scale war on Syria for 8 years, why do you ASSUME they are going to give in to one now?
They know who wants one. They know that THEY want a more measured approach. They DO know that Assad has been losing his mind for the last 2 years.
Kerry knows more about Assad than anyone else, nadin - even more than Robert Parry - because Kerry bothered to reach out to Assad in ways that no one else would.....in order to thwart those screaming for war.
No one puts Kerry's views in CONTEXT because it is easier to jerk one's knee reflexively than to take the time to discover what corpmedia certainly failed in its duty to report.
This OP was about the human race and what it achieved. That so many dismiss chemical weapon ban as unworthy of defense is a reality that we all should face because we were brought to that conclusion, whether you admit it or not because of decades of machinations by Bushes and their international cronies. Bushes ACHIEVED that, didn't they? Now no Democratic US president can interfere with crimes against innocents because of the Bushes and their legacy.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)having as a job to look at onions, and some are more stinky than others, I have learned that rarely does the surface layer of the onion is the only explanation.
As to the Corpmedia, look, you trust Kerry and Obama implicitly. I don't. And you could say (hard to say it but whatever) that since I am an actual reporter with press pass I am part of the problem.
I have been following this from the early days. People here laughed when we dared do the first in depth search of the issue. Sadly, I think we were right. And I will say something that you will not want to hear, but there are forces that control what goes in DC that are more powerful than the American President or his Secretary of State. These are shadowy forces that intend on keeping the Empire going.
This WMD outrage is just the excuse they needed.
As to the human race, it will be extinct soon, since we cannot deal with the other issue we have created. But until that happens, some in the human race are despicable individuals who only care about feathering their nests and that includes war.
In fact, due to what we have created I expect MORE, not less wars in the 21st century.
blm
(113,071 posts)Last edited Thu Sep 5, 2013, 07:24 PM - Edit history (1)
and disagreed with vehemently over cabinet positions, especially of Clinton because I focused on her hawkish positions, and specifically in regard to Syria. I don't expect people to remember everything I posted, but, I posted about Syria enough the last 8 years and my view of Clinton's role as Sec of State, where some of that could have sunk through.
Say something I don't want to hear? Fer chrissakes I've been on about that very thing for over a decade.
I've been taking heat here for DARING to notice thatSnowden worked at CIA for Bush, THEN went to work for a Bush loyalist firm, Dell. THEN went to work for Bush loyalist firm, Booz-Allen. THEN he comes out about NSA only when the attack is shaped to personally point at Obama, spawning more of the Obama = Bush meme, and right when Bushes are at the beginning of their rehab the Bush name and legacy tour. I think I know pretty damn well what's been going on. Better than those who blindly accepted whatever Snowden did unquestioningly.
I never in a million years believed that GHWBush and his cronies would allow the private security firms that THEY brought in to the security network THEY developed over the decades and have been loyal to BushInc for so long to ever be loyal to any Dem president. Obama accepted the position of president, but, it in no way means he is in control of every aspect of the security and intel agencies. There is a faction within those groups loyal only to BushInc.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)as to Booz Allen, you know how old they are? THey are so old that they were the consulting firm that was engaged by the San Diego City Council to look at the Metropolitan Transit System and wether to bring the trolley and bus systems under one umbrella.
Yes, they are dirty, but are much older than the Bushies.
As to Snowden. No I do not think he was a honey trap. He was what he was. But not a honey trap.
But I believe, mostly after looking at onions across the nation, that yes, city councils and the feds are controlled by interests that cannot and will not tolerate any who will go against their interests. You hear the truth for a second when disgraced mayors (San Diego recently), are forced out. Or when Presidents give a farewell speech that happens to be a warning, since there is nothing more to lose.
This applies right now.
January 17, 1961
Good evening, my fellow Americans: First, I should like to express my gratitude to the radio and television networks for the opportunity they have given me over the years to bring reports and messages to our nation. My special thanks go to them for the opportunity of addressing you this evening.
Three days from now, after a half century of service of our country, I shall lay down the responsibilities of office as, in traditional and solemn ceremony, the authority of the Presidency is vested in my successor.
This evening I come to you with a message of leave-taking and farewell, and to share a few final thoughts with you, my countrymen.
Like every other citizen, I wish the new President, and all who will labor with him, Godspeed. I pray that the coming years will be blessed with peace and prosperity for all.
Our people expect their President and the Congress to find essential agreement on questions of great moment, the wise resolution of which will better shape the future of the nation.
My own relations with Congress, which began on a remote and tenuous basis when, long ago, a member of the Senate appointed me to West Point, have since ranged to the intimate during the war and immediate post-war period, and finally to the mutually interdependent during these past eight years.
In this final relationship, the Congress and the Administration have, on most vital issues, cooperated well, to serve the nation well rather than mere partisanship, and so have assured that the business of the nation should go forward. So my official relationship with Congress ends in a feeling on my part, of gratitude that we have been able to do so much together.
We now stand ten years past the midpoint of a century that has witnessed four major wars among great nations. Three of these involved our own country. Despite these holocausts America is today the strongest, the most influential and most productive nation in the world. Understandably proud of this pre-eminence, we yet realize that America's leadership and prestige depend, not merely upon our unmatched material progress, riches and military strength, but on how we use our power in the interests of world peace and human betterment.
Throughout America's adventure in free government, such basic purposes have been to keep the peace; to foster progress in human achievement, and to enhance liberty, dignity and integrity among peoples and among nations.
To strive for less would be unworthy of a free and religious people.
Any failure traceable to arrogance or our lack of comprehension or readiness to sacrifice would inflict upon us a grievous hurt, both at home and abroad.
Progress toward these noble goals is persistently threatened by the conflict now engulfing the world. It commands our whole attention, absorbs our very beings. We face a hostile ideology global in scope, atheistic in character, ruthless in purpose, and insidious in method. Unhappily the danger it poses promises to be of indefinite duration. To meet it successfully, there is called for, not so much the emotional and transitory sacrifices of crisis, but rather those which enable us to carry forward steadily, surely, and without complaint the burdens of a prolonged and complex struggle – with liberty the stake. Only thus shall we remain, despite every provocation, on our charted course toward permanent peace and human betterment.
Crises there will continue to be. In meeting them, whether foreign or domestic, great or small, there is a recurring temptation to feel that some spectacular and costly action could become the miraculous solution to all current difficulties. A huge increase in the newer elements of our defenses; development of unrealistic programs to cure every ill in agriculture; a dramatic expansion in basic and applied research – these and many other possibilities, each possibly promising in itself, may be suggested as the only way to the road we wish to travel.
A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction.
But each proposal must be weighed in light of a broader consideration; the need to maintain balance in and among national programs – balance between the private and the public economy, balance between the cost and hoped for advantages – balance between the clearly necessary and the comfortably desirable; balance between our essential requirements as a nation and the duties imposed by the nation upon the individual; balance between the actions of the moment and the national welfare of the future. Good judgment seeks balance and progress; lack of it eventually finds imbalance and frustration.
The record of many decades stands as proof that our people and their Government have, in the main, understood these truths and have responded to them well in the face of threat and stress.
But threats, new in kind or degree, constantly arise.
Of these, I mention two only.
A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction.
Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.
Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.
American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions.
This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence – economic, political, even spiritual – is felt in every city, every Statehouse, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.
Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.
In this revolution, research has become central, it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.
Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.
The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded.
Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.
The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded.
It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system – ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society.
Another factor in maintaining balance involves the element of time. As we peer into society's future, we – you and I, and our government – must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering for, for our own ease and convenience, the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without asking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage. We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow.
Down the long lane of the history yet to be written America knows that this world of ours, ever growing smaller, must avoid becoming a community of dreadful fear and hate, and be, instead, a proud confederation of mutual trust and respect.
Such a confederation must be one of equals. The weakest must come to the conference table with the same confidence as do we, protected as we are by our moral, economic, and military strength. That table, though scarred by many past frustrations, cannot be abandoned for the certain agony of the battlefield.
Disarmament, with mutual honor and confidence, is a continuing imperative. Together we must learn how to compose differences, not with arms, but with intellect and decent purpose. Because this need is so sharp and apparent I confess that I lay down my official responsibilities in this field with a definite sense of disappointment. As one who has witnessed the horror and the lingering sadness of war – as one who knows that another war could utterly destroy this civilization which has been so slowly and painfully built over thousands of years – I wish I could say tonight that a lasting peace is in sight.
Happily, I can say that war has been avoided. Steady progress toward our ultimate goal has been made. But, so much remains to be done. As a private citizen, I shall never cease to do what little I can to help the world advance along that road.
So – in this my last good night to you as your President – I thank you for the many opportunities you have given me for public service in war and peace. I trust that in that service you find some things worthy; as for the rest of it, I know you will find ways to improve performance in the future.
You and I – my fellow citizens – need to be strong in our faith that all nations, under God, will reach the goal of peace with justice. May we be ever unswerving in devotion to principle, confident but humble with power, diligent in pursuit of the Nations' great goals.
To all the peoples of the world, I once more give expression to America's prayerful and continuing aspiration:
We pray that peoples of all faiths, all races, all nations, may have their great human needs satisfied; that those now denied opportunity shall come to enjoy it to the full; that all who yearn for freedom may experience its spiritual blessings; that those who have freedom will understand, also, its heavy responsibilities; that all who are insensitive to the needs of others will learn charity; that the scourges of poverty, disease and ignorance will be made to disappear from the earth, and that, in the goodness of time, all peoples will come to live together in a peace guaranteed by the binding force of mutual respect and love.
Now, on Friday noon, I am to become a private citizen. I am proud to do so. I look forward to it.
Thank you, and good night.
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)bans murder in the guise of just cause. Then you got something!
blm
(113,071 posts).
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)blm
(113,071 posts).
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)entails killing more people. Hooray!
Precisely
(358 posts)original point. Thanks for the thread. So maybe enforcement is -- or needs to be -- defined. Or needs to be redefined.
The comment about "not an excuse to commit other atrocities" fits.
blm
(113,071 posts)in regard to Obama and Kerry?
Especially when people SHOULD know by now, had they done even a little bit of research on Syria the past few weeks, that it had been Kerry protecting Assad from war hawks in US and personally guiding him towards accepting peaceful measures since 2005. Kerry was pretty successful with that, until Arab Spring triggered a paranoia in Assad that is increasingly controlling the lengths and brutality of his actions.
Kerry earned the right to judge Assad's actions, judge his mental state now, and judge what he is capable of doing in the near future. No one else from the US bothered to engage Assad to prevent war. Kerry did it on his own. His word regarding Assad now should be considered in the historic CONTEXT of those efforts.
Precisely
(358 posts)except support and credibility are lacking for making a bombing strike.
Someone else answered the enforcement question.
I appreciate your faith in the leaders we have.
blm
(113,071 posts)Ever read the Iran/Contra report?
Ever read about Iran/Iraq war?
Ever read about CIA drug running, and arms dealing?
Ever know that Kerry had personally worked for 8 years to keep Assad's sh!t together since 2005 in an effort to prevent an attack in Syria, which was going along just fine until Arab Spring triggered Assad's descent into paranoia?
THAT'S the REASON that I know Kerry is NOT lying about the dangers he is warning about now.
Precisely
(358 posts)Trust? Yes, I know the history. Which is why I'm not sure how much actual power Obama or Kerry have. Thanks again for this thread.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)the reaction in the hands of the UN. The treaty does not give us the right to act.
TM99
(8,352 posts)you appear to be someone who takes very seriously this convention. You consider it a very important international law. You seem to want it to be enforced assuming that if it is not, then it will not be an effective deterrent to future abuses.
So you sound, I guess I would say, legalistic about it.
So then why do you support a unilateral attack on Syria by the United States which also would violate an international law? Unless attacked, we have no legal standing for this attack. Unless given authorization by the UNSC, we are in violation of international law, yet again, for attacking a sovereign nation.
If we are going to follow the rules of international law, then shouldn't we do so not selectively as it serves our own national interests but rather uniformly and with respect to all of the international laws that come to bear on this and other situations involving WMD's?
blm
(113,071 posts)And I also believe that if Obama doesn't come from a place of strength on this, nothing will stop more powerful dictators and countries from seeing the free ride they can get from deploying chemical weapons. No answer here is perfect, including the answer of inaction that many of you prefer.
This president is not lying about what occurred, he did not manufacture intel and evidence, and he's been working to avoid military confrontation in Syria, especially via Kerry's 8yr focus on engaging Assad.
Whether many Americans like it or not, that doesn't change the reality that Obama IS president of the US and with that greatest power comes the greatest responsibility.
Either America's president has a human duty to keep an international chemical weapons banned or he does not.
Precisely
(358 posts)"Either America's president has a human duty to keep an international chemical weapons banned or he does not."
Not unilaterally.
"Whether many Americans like it or not, that doesn't change the reality that Obama IS president of the US and with that greatest power comes the greatest responsibility."
And great responsibility to not abuse that power.
TM99
(8,352 posts)a hypocrite and an authoritarian.
No decision should be made based on a 'place of strength' in a situation this potentially rife with negative consequences. That is adolescent posturing and human primate dominance games. You seem to want a 'strong authority' or 'big daddy' when you say something like this. Even if Assad is acting from that place, the US President and this country should not. After Bush, though, apparently it is expected.
No one that I have seen opposed to this rushed military action solely on the part of the US has said the answer is 'inaction'. That is simply untrue and very disingenuous on your part to promulgate.
We do not know yet if any of them are lying or not. We do know that there are holes in the Intel. We do know that there are contradictions in the 'facts'. Kerry quotes one figure for the dead, and several other sources quote numbers anywhere from a bit smaller to dramatically smaller. We do know that there have been previous chemical weapons attacks by both Assad AND the rebels. Why all of a sudden now is it 'wrong' and something dramatic & quick must be done? They may not be 'lying' but there are definitely not being fully truthful. For pete's sake, the UN weapons inspectors have not even filed their reports. They were actually there on the ground investigating versus Intel.
No, what you and others need to accept, like it or not, is that the reality is not that Obama and the US have great power, it is that they 'control' great power. That is what forces a great responsibility. And those adults with great responsibility do not act this quickly and this hyperbolically (how many times now has Kerry called Assad Hitler?!) when dealing with serious issues. If you have ever held positions of great responsibility and had to exercise control of great power, you would not have said the bullshit you just did.
The US President has a responsibility first and foremost to this country. Then, as a leader within the international community, he has a responsibility to seek majority support for his actions, AND they must be within the boundaries of international law. Anything else is unacceptable and makes us no different than the Syria's of the world that we pretend to be superior to.
The US going it alone, more of that fucking cowboy diplomacy, is not appropriate or acceptable to an international community. The US is not the empire of the world. The US President is not the emperor. He truly holds no more weight or control than any other member leader of the international community no matter how big and powerful his military might be.
This is not 'might makes right' faux social Darwinism.
blm
(113,071 posts)I gave reasons why a president should act. I didn't say he has to do so without advisement, observations and input from other nations. The point is that ULTIMATELY having the greatest power in the world requires the greatest amount of responsibility. And once the responsibility to AVOID and PREVENT use of force has been exhausted, the burden to act is still on the presidency.
By the way - the fact that you call it a RUSH is further proof you refuse to acknowledge the 8 years of Kerry's diplomatic legwork that had been taken to avoid a confrontation.
TM99
(8,352 posts)is nothing more than a rephrasing of what you already stated. Saying it again still doesn't make it so.
Do you realize how ridiculous your last statement is? You are attempting to draw a causality argument with the idea that the current situation is somehow related to Kerry's obvious failure at a diplomatic solution. That is post hoc lunacy.
I acknowledge that Kerry attempted to secure a diplomatic solution while as a Senator. He did not succeed. Is he the only choice and option we have then for a diplomatic solution? Of course not, that is equally ridiculous.
The current situation concerns an alleged chemical weapons attack and the US under Obama's administration mistaken belief that they will be the deciders on how the Convention is upheld even if it means a non UN approved illegal military action before the full investigation has even been completed or discussed by the international community.
Which leads us full circle back to the cowboy fucking diplomacy of the US. Perhaps we should not take Clausewitz so literally. When diplomacy ends or falters, we do not always have to rush in guns a blazing to make it 'right'.
blm
(113,071 posts)and smears.
Tough that you don't 'get' that, TM.
TM99
(8,352 posts)What you don't 'get' is that those of us who know you are wrong and disagree are equally welcome to continue to challenge you every day if necessary.
You support Obama & Kerry apparently without question.
So be it.
I and others do not, and we have damned good and sound reasons for not doing so.
blm
(113,071 posts)I do trust that Kerry is not lying about Syria based on his history of trying to avoid use of force there. The facts back me up.
That you are unfamiliar with my many posts noting Obama's weaknesses and failings, is no biggie - But, you did need to add your presumption, your INACCURATE presumption- to reach your judgement. So be it.
KT2000
(20,585 posts)talks, treaties, conventions, agreements be deemed null and void? Should no country ever engage in arms control efforts?
If the chemical weapons agreements be deemed useless by no action mean that all other existing agreements and treaties are meaningless?
TM99
(8,352 posts)The Chemical Weapons Convention does not sanction retaliatory military strikes in violation of international law as means of 'enforcement'.
We are not even party to several arms control efforts. Where is your concern over our use of Willie Pete? Where is your concern for our use of depleted uranium. More so, where is your concern for our continued refusal to join the convention on the banning of land mines?
Members lobby against us and attempt to pressure us politically and diplomatically to alter our stances on land mines. By yours and others twisted attempts at logic on this, then other countries may choose to attack us for our use of them. After all, the international community must enforce their arms conventions and treaties right? 
KT2000
(20,585 posts)isn't it worthwhile that there are even attempts at agreement on the use of landmines?
The world is decades behind the weapons technology but that does not negate the efforts of banning horrible weapons. The efforts to get countries together to agree on arms reduction in itself is a benefit to relations but it has to mean something.
The countries that signed on to the chemical ban agreements should stand up as Obama has.
TM99
(8,352 posts)But is Obama's unilateral military intervention against international law and American public support is 'standing up' for these conventions?
You mean there isn't anything else he could do within those constraints? I mean, after all, he does work for us, the American public. The US is still a member state of the UN and a UNSC vetoing power.
So this is just another variation on the 'looking touch' argument. You just frame it as 'meaning something'. So if we don't attack Syria right now with missiles, anything else is not 'meaningful'?
Have you and Obama given other countries that are part of the Convention the opportunity to 'stand up'? Has the UN published its weapon inspectors report yet? Has a Security Council meeting been called to discuss diplomatic and economic means of resolution?
KT2000
(20,585 posts)would be for the world to come together and freeze all of Assad's assets.
blm
(113,071 posts)quite a long time FIRST? That crucial component always seems to be deliberately ignored as you try to claim this has been a rush to war.
Response to blm (Reply #57)
KT2000 This message was self-deleted by its author.
TM99
(8,352 posts)You do realize, though, that diplomacy can continue even if one person failed at the job of getting it done, right?
How about we send President Carter who has no vested interest politically to attempt another round of diplomacy?
Perhaps Kerry was just not up for the job.
blm
(113,071 posts)In fact, Kerry had succeeded by 2009 in bringing Assad to the point where he would depend on his input and support in the region for Mideast peace talks. No one wanted Assad to be protected more than Kerry, to keep Assad's focus on measured leadership instead of his father's brutality, especially since Kerry had been laying the groundwork for and finally initiated Mideast peace talks earlier this year.
>>>>
In February 2009, Kerry led a delegation there to engage Syria. Syrian President Bashar al-Assad told visiting US members of Congress on Saturday that the United States should ‘move away from a policy based on dictating decisions.’ Assad's guests on Saturday included US Senator John Kerry, who headed the third delegation this week to call on the Syrian president's door as Washington reviews its policies toward countries the previous administration regarded as hostile. Assad told his visitors that future relations should be based on a ‘proper understanding’ by Washington of regional issues and on common interests, SANA news agency reported,” AFP reported at the time.
AFP followed up with this report after the visit stating that Kerry believes "Syria is an essential player in bringing peace and stability to the region":
“President Barack Obama's administration considers Syria a key player in Washington's efforts to revive the stalled Middle East peace process, US Senator John Kerry said in Damascus on Thursday. ‘Syria is an essential player in bringing peace and stability to the region,’ Kerry, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said in a speech after meeting President Bashar al-Assad. ‘Both the United States and Syria have a very deep interest... in having a very frank exchange on any differences (and) agreements that we have about the possibilities of peace in this region,’ he said in the statement.”>>>>>
Somehow YOU have come to believe that your analysis of Syria and what has occurred is far more accurate than Kerry's.
this game is tiresome.
Kerry is not to blame for the current situation AND he did not succeed in his diplomatic mission. Can you follow that?
Kerry 'believes' is not necessarily the reality as well. I do not claim 'special knowledge' of Syrian politics. You, however, are attempting to do so by using third party politics. You are not confident in your own ability to debate the actual points, so you are appealing to an authority.
You take his 'persona' at face value. That is your prerogative. I do not. As we both do not know the man's true intentions, heart, and soul, my analysis and argument is with you.
Try to keep up, ok?
blm
(113,071 posts)and any search of my postings show I had a longterm focus on Syria. It was one of my reasons for being so angry with the Clintons and their support of expanding war into Syria should Bush succeed in getting to that point.
You need to dismiss it as something else because you never paid attention yourself, and want to trust that you have all the information you need to stick to the narrative you prefer.
TM99
(8,352 posts)You don't.
But I hate to do this to you, but watch this. Then after you can respond how this is different now than then.
For someone who has supposedly done their research, your short term memory is rather bad.
blm
(113,071 posts)of other countries.
blm
(113,071 posts)Oh really?
Obama manufactured the evidence and intel and videotapes and shaped it to implicate Assad in a widespread chemical attack?
Obama and Kerry NEVER attempted to find diplomatic solutions in Syria?
TM99
(8,352 posts)have the UN inspection teams completed their analysis and report?
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/09/02/201027/to-some-us-case-for-syrian-gas.html#.UiRD00RQink
blm
(113,071 posts)so many are too wary of saying what we DO know because of NSA's reach - We KNOW that surveillance has been focused on the area, including telecommunications. France and Germany have also reported 'intercepted' communications by US consistent with theirs that proved Assad's regime responsible.
Why on earth would you presume I would avoid that question? You presume an awful lot about me, TM. One of your biggest LOL is that I defer to authoritarianism.
http://www.france24.com/en/20130828-intercepted-phone-call-proves-syria-used-chemical-weapons
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/04/us-syria-crisis-germany-idUSBRE9830TV20130904
Try some CURRENT McClatchy:
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/09/04/201193/intercepted-call-bolsters-syrian.html#.UijcRDnjKCU
TM99
(8,352 posts)I could keep this up all day. 
No you didn't actually, simply, or directly answer my question. I was right. You didn't answer the question. You attempted to push your position with your authorities as definitive without recognizing that they might not be.
]
My assessment still stands and thus far has not been proven to be inaccurate.
Is the UN weapons experts' report complete?
Yes or no?
Until it is the other Intel is uncorroborated by independent & objective sources. If that Intel proves to be completely or partially wrong, we can not walk back an act of war.
So yes, once again, slow the fuck down.
blm
(113,071 posts).
cali
(114,904 posts)and striking Syria with bombs won't stop it from happening in the future.
And long before there were the poems of Owen and Brook and others, there were protests and laments about war- Lysistrata ring a bell?
blm
(113,071 posts)Reaching to assuage a considerable ego yet again, eh cali?
cali
(114,904 posts)That's the impression you gave me.
in any case, the decision to bomb Syria seems highly unlikely to dissuade future use of chemical weapons. Desperate, ruthless leaders will continue to use whatever they can get their hands on.
Hey, did Kerry ever NOT support military action during his Senate career? Don't bother with the nonsensical claim that when he voted for the IWR he was really voting for diplomacy. I heard him say yesterday that he supported invading Panama and Grenada.
blm
(113,071 posts)Tell you what, cali - when you can name the one lawmaker in DC who did more to expose government corruption over the last 5 decades than John Kerry has, then I'll stop posting why his efforts should matter and should be used in CONTEXT during these debates. You know, ala Why Kerry's word about Syria is far more trustworthy than others BECAUSE he was the ONLY American lawmaker who saw the need to engage with Assad and personally followed through since 2005.
Kerry's now taking the blame and smears from people completely ignorant of his efforts, and completely unaware that Kerry knows Assad's current mental state far better than any one else. And that includes you.
Let's try that!
WilliamPitt
(58,179 posts)Then why did Britain sell them to Syria 10 months into the civil war?
blm
(113,071 posts).
WilliamPitt
(58,179 posts)blm
(113,071 posts)Why does Britain's action mean that YOU no longer see the international ban on chemical weapons as worthwhile?
malthaussen
(17,205 posts)... hard to believe sometimes. The WWI poets -- and the history of WWI -- should be required study in every citadel of privilege across the war-mongering globe.
Of course, they'd probably just laugh and call for more high explosives.
-- Mal
anneboleyn
(5,611 posts)who served in the war -- I believe the very last survivor was an English woman who served the last year or so of the war, and she was exceptionally humble about her status as the last living WWI vet. She spoke very highly of the young British officers with whom she interacted. She passed away a few years ago, if memory serves, and she had lived to a very, very ripe old age of 110 or so (there is a Wikipedia page listing the last WWI survivors).
I studied some of the "Lost Generation" writing in grad school. I agree with you entirely that WWI literature should be required study for our students even though U. S. involvement was more limited.
England, and of course all countries involved in the war, suffered such brutal results -- they lost that entire generation of brilliant young men (like Wilfred Owen who died shortly before the 1918 armistice). The men who survived, C.S. Lewis, Tolkien (his two best friends died in WWI), and so many others -- on our side of the pond Fitzgerald and Hemingway, were haunted by the war for the rest of their lives.
The war, with all of its horrendous brutality, the machine guns, the mustard gas, the merciless shelling, which many of the men claimed was the worst of all because of the terror it created, should never be forgotten.
malthaussen
(17,205 posts)... and the impotence (or complicity?) of our leaders to evade it. Our "little" wars of today may kill fewer people -- on "our" side, anyway, as if humanity could really be divided up into "sides," -- but it seems we have yet to find a way to halt the fruitless Will to Stupidity.
And since the leaders rarely suffer -- poor Kaiser Wilhelm, he was exiled to Holland -- they have no incentive to try to halt it.
-- Mal
Hell Hath No Fury
(16,327 posts)way being considered to preserve this global agreement? THAT I suspect is what is bothering folks the most. I am sorry, but this whole thing stinks to high heaven. It is clear as day that they are simply using chemical weapons as the fig leaf for the call for bombing -- we have seen them admit over and over the real reasons behind the new push: credibility. O's credibility, the US's credibility, future President's credibility.
If it was really about the chemical weapons we'd have raised the issue the first time they were used in Syria.
If the US wants to lead the push for "punishment" of Assad then talk it to the UN -- the place where we have agreed that issues like this are supposed to be resolved as a worldwide community. And, hopefully, punishment may come in a different form then a bomb.
blm
(113,071 posts)it much earlier when chemical weapons were suspected of being used. Obama didn't fall for the push to attack then just as he isn't falling for some MIC trick now.
The heavy diplomatic efforts were going on for a long time - in Kerry's case since 2005 - just because the corpmedia never gave attention to those efforts doesn't mean they didn't happen. This decision to strike isn't coming from a rush to war mindset that so many are claiming.
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)We do NOT agree that cruise missiles are the answer.
That's something the pro war crowd has still failed to grasp.
blm
(113,071 posts)Every action is not Bush's Iraq.
reformist2
(9,841 posts)blm
(113,071 posts)of those who don't see the ban on chemical weapons as a worthwhile ban to defend any longer.
Union Scribe
(7,099 posts)Since the current plan has no "boots on the ground" and the rebels having control over them is about as good a plan as blowing the WMD up and hoping everyone there can hold their breath for awhile, what are you hoping for here?
blm
(113,071 posts)If your point is that you no longer want use of chemical weapons on innocent civilians to be a matter of concern to the world, then say so. Petition to end Geneva.
Union Scribe
(7,099 posts)a simple fucking question. Why is it so hard for the supporters of this war to answer simple fucking questions without insisting the asker is a fan of dead children? "I trust it will be taken care of" is not an answer, especially since the administration has not addressed the issue.
blm
(113,071 posts)can't guarantee it, just like you can't guarantee that inaction will work out fine.
But, this thread was about once upon a time when the world decided to ban chemical weapons.
For those who don't want the burden of the responsibility to hold nations that DO use chemical weapons to commit widespread murder, then send a petition around and get the US to declare Geneva irrelevant to this era.
markpkessinger
(8,401 posts). . . or to those in Iraq who are dealing with the effects of white phosphorous.
