President Obama convinced me tonight. Assad’s chemical attack on Syrians violates international law. That provides a legal justification for a response.
The common-sense reason to do it is exactly as President Obama stated it. If we do not, then other dictators will not hesitate to use chemical weapons. This would result in a further breakdown of international law and widespread violations of human rights.
So I’ve changed my view. I would like to see support from the international community and approve of Obama’s cautious approach. However, one way or the other, there should be a strike to discourage Assad and others from mass murder.
The common-sense reason to do it is exactly as President Obama stated it. If we do not, then other dictators will not hesitate to use chemical weapons. This would result in a further breakdown of international law and widespread violations of human rights.Even if we do the strike, it will not stop other dictators from using whatever boogyman weapons they can. That has never worked and never will.
I disagree. Dictators do what’s in their self-interest and what they can get away with. If an action meets with an unpleasant response, and dictators know that the world is serious, they will change their behavior - not all of them maybe but enough to make a difference for people who would otherwise have been attacked, and for the world. Our problem has been that international responses have not been consistent, often driven by parochial concerns instead of sound and objective analysis of what is necessary to maintain certain conditions in the world.
What makes this so much more important than the ongoing genocide in Darfur], which the United States and Europe seem to be ignoring? Seven percent of Darfur’s citizens have died in this civil war since 2003, and almost half the population has been displaced, yet neither Bush nor Obama nor any other Western leader has pushed to intervene. I suspect that if Darfur had oil or natural gas the world would notice.
Obama is a very persuasive speaker, so don’t let his rhetoric fool you. This is not about chemical weapons, it is about a natural gas pipeline].
I say let Exxon/Mobile fight its own wars for a change, and it seems the American people are weary of energy wars.
What makes this so much more important than the ongoing genocide in Darfur], which the United States and Europe seem to be ignoring? Seven percent of Darfur's citizens have died in this civil war since 2003, and almost half the population has been displaced, yet neither Bush nor Obama nor any other Western leader has pushed to intervene. I suspect that if Darfur had oil or natural gas the world would notice. Obama is a very persuasive speaker, so don't let his rhetoric fool you. This is not about chemical weapons, it is about a natural gas pipeline]. I say let Exxon/Mobile fight its own wars for a change, and it seems the American people are weary of energy wars.Quite apart from the oil, there are vast differences between a targeted strike against the chemical weapons capacity of a dictator, versus intervention into a country's civil war. One of the main selling points of a strike against Syria is that we can accomplish a goal with limited risk and expenditure. I don't see how we could do that in Darfur. So while your point about oil, which has driven our foreign policy for decades, is an excellent one, it's not dispositive on every point. What do you think should be our response in Syria and in Darfur, if any; and why?
The rational part of my brain tells me that the U.S. should do whatever is in my best interest. No idea what that is, though: attack Syria if it means I’ll be paying less for gas, don’t attack Syria if this may lead to WWIII.
The emotional part of my brain tells me that somebody should attack the U.S. for violating the international law.
The emotional part of my brain tells me that somebody should attack the U.S. for violating the international law.I thought you didn't want a scenario that leads to WWIII?
What do you think should be our response in Syria and in Darfur, if any; and why?The favor negotiating with Assad to get his regime to turn over its chemical weapons. I will not support unilateral intervention. The problem, of course, is safely giving United Nations inspectors access to the areas they need to find the chemical weapons. As for Darfur, the United Nations should take the lead and intervene to stop the genocide. The world seems disinterested in Darfur, however.
The emotional part of my brain tells me that somebody should attack the U.S. for violating the international law.I thought you didn't want a scenario that leads to WWIII? Well, you know how emotional thinking can go sometimes...
I see there’s speculation about WWIII going round the circles.
I tend to believe it is very possible.
Saber rattling and detente oscillate for decades sometimes.
However throughout history this occasionally builds up underlying pressures which eventually burst.
Amid this Saber Rattling and Detente, historically there are often shifting regimes in the focus areas of economic/resource interests
and pressures which build up along those spheres of influence by major powers.
After that it only takes economic depression in the various countries and restlessness of the people
under both lackluster, ineffectual leaders and dynamic forceful leaders.
The emotional part of my brain tells me that somebody should attack the U.S. for violating the international law.I thought you didn't want a scenario that leads to WWIII? Well, you know how emotional thinking can go sometimes... Yeah, I do. :-)
Quite apart from the oil, there are vast differences between a targeted strike against the chemical weapons capacity of a dictator, versus intervention into a country's civil war. One of the main selling points of a strike against Syria is that we can accomplish a goal with limited risk and expenditure. I don't see how we could do that in Darfur.If the current administration launches a strike, then they can't be counted on to practice limited anything.
President Obama convinced me tonight. Assad's chemical attack on Syrians violates international law. That provides a legal justification for a response. The common-sense reason to do it is exactly as President Obama stated it. If we do not, then other dictators will not hesitate to use chemical weapons. This would result in a further breakdown of international law and widespread violations of human rights. So I've changed my view. I would like to see support from the international community and approve of Obama's cautious approach. However, one way or the other, there should be a strike to discourage Assad and others from mass murder.Yes, but it should be an INTERNATIONAL response, and so far it isn't. Syria is more Russia's problem than anyone else's. Let them handle it. Lois
I get the impression that most Americans (except the hawks ) are tired of the U.S. being the “policeman” of the World. We’ve been doing this since Teddy’s big stick diplomacy. I do agree that international intervention in areas like Darfur is necessary from a humanitarian stand point but sorting the good guys from the bad would be a diplomatic nightmare; there are at least ten groups competing for power there. The Russians though have a stake in the chemical weapons controversy. They don’t want extremist groups in their country getting hold of the stuff and using it on them.
Cap’t Jack
Quite apart from the oil, there are vast differences between a targeted strike against the chemical weapons capacity of a dictator, versus intervention into a country's civil war. One of the main selling points of a strike against Syria is that we can accomplish a goal with limited risk and expenditure. I don't see how we could do that in Darfur.If the current administration launches a strike, then they can't be counted on to practice limited anything. You can say that, and I'll grant you that it is a concern. However, I give this president credence when he lays out a specific mission. Bush, Sr., did it, and I haven't seen Obama do anything that would make me trust him less than any other president.
I think we need to stay out of somebody else’s civil wars. The side of the angels is rarely apparent, often doesn’t exist, and more often then not, all you do is exchange one corrupt brutal and venal regime for one which is worse.
(And who the hell are WE to “punish” a sovereign state?)
This situation though is worse than the US being the policeman for the world. It’s the policeman punishing others for actions he himself does more than anyone else. Lawrence O’Donnell had a great segment the other day about napalm. His basic point was, the US itself is and has been the worlds largest and worst purveyor of chemical weapons. It literally supplied them to dictators and encouraged the dictator to use them! (Saddam Hussein by Reagan) And before that used them to such an extent that the UN created a treaty against using napalm that most other countries signed except the US, until 2009! It was the world telling the US to stop.
Can you imagine if your local police chief, who you knew dealt in drugs to kids, for example, gave a speech about how he’s going to go after the southside neighborhood for dealing drugs to kids? You’d probably applaud him in public, then meet with your other neighbors secretly on ways to bring him down. The hypocrisy would drive you mad. And this is no different from how other countries feel about the US, regardless of POTUS.
I do not think that the U.S. should lead a strike, nor that there should be any strike unless conducted by the U.N. Here’s why:
- I listened to Obama’s address (well, I only read it in a White House e-mail that was sent out), and it was indeed reasonable and convincing. However, earlier that day I had received another e-mail by Rabbi Michael Lerner of Tikkun Magazine addressing Obama’s not yet formulated address and Congress. The point of Rabbi Lerner made more sense to me. Point 2 addresses that point.
- The U.S. has forfeited any right to be “world policeman” by virtue of their own human rights violations. Speaking of “American Interests” rather than human rights made me ponder the first moment I heard it. What? American Interests? - That was my point. The Rabbi pointed out that any strike would not end the war, nor remove Assad, so it would simply be a “showing muscle”, which will enrage people even further. Which leads to point 3.
- In the e-mail I got it was acknowledged that it was “clumsy” and not the best solution there is, but it pointed to a different direction, a different logic of dealing with these things for the future. And one in that America could lead, non-violently. - Since neither a strike nor no strike would end the war, the only other means are diplomacy. The hands of the U.N. are tied because of Russia’s and China’s veto rights. Would the U.S., would Obama call for a similar meeting outside the U.N., utterly democratic, no large nations having veto rights, an international decision on these things could be reached, and should the nations vote for a strike it would be a worldwide decision, under a leadership they might choose, possibly the U.S. - But so far, without the U.N., without even wanting to do anything other than showing power, this type of “warfare” will never end. It will just keep going and going. The entire logic has to change.
I did take Obama’s message as very good, but thinking about future scenarios like that these “old school” punishments by the bigger powers against the smaller ones… they don’t do anything except keeping rumors underground waiting for the next best opportunity to try again.
The point of chemical weapons in the hands of others, possibly terrorists, was a good one… but I see Bush rhetoric. Unless this is about human rights, I really do not think the U.S. has to fear anything. Terrorism? Way overblown in its power, hence of good use to people that like fighting.
In case you care to see the e-mail I mentioned, here is the link:
http://www.tikkun.org/nextgen/syria-what-obama-should-do
Syria “expert” cited by Kerry and McCain fired for lying about her résumé].
During last week’s Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on possible military strikes against Syria, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) read from an “important op-ed by Dr. Elizabeth O’Bagy," whom he described as a “Syria analyst at the Institute for the Study of War." That group fired O'Bagy Wedensday] after learning she had falsely claimed she holds a Ph.D.Meet the new boss, same as the Old Boss]. At least the Republicans don't seem inclined to bend over and let Obama lead us into a fruitless war as the Democrats did with Shrub.
Who stepped in and attacked he US for using chemical warfare in Viet Nam? Oh, wait, that was the US. No harm, no foul. Everything’s just fine.
Lois