OT: looks like we fired on Libya.....

User Forum Topic
Submitted by flu on March 19, 2011 - 1:43pm

So much for not get involved....Well, at least we're not sending ground troops...And i guess it's a coalition force....
And the french fired first :)

Submitted by spdrun on September 4, 2013 - 12:59pm.

I'm not sure if justice has existed ANYWHERE in the Middle East in the last 100 years, sad to say.

Submitted by spdrun on September 4, 2013 - 1:01pm.

I'm not sure if we can bomb another country
(short of killing everyone and letting G-d sort them out) without at least inadvertently picking a side.

Submitted by FlyerInHi on September 4, 2013 - 1:46pm.

The context of the existing order is what keeps us bogged down.

We created the anti-Americanism in the populations of the Middle East. We supported colonial powers, deposed leaders, created dictators, etc... So it's logical that we are not seen as friends. The right wing Muslim groups were the only social structures that could resist the oppressors we supported.

Sure, right wing Muslim groups will gain power through the ballot boxes if the existing order crumbles. There will be unrest and possibly an attack on Israel. But we need to let a natural order get established.

In the process, we needs to make sure the Muslim populations know that we are their friends.

If it were up to me, I'd let Iran have nuclear weapons by pretending they don't have them (like we do with israel) and normalize relations with Tehran. Then gradually reduce military aid to Israel and Egypt.

Saudia Arabia can afford to buy its own weapons. But if there is revolution, we need to support popular will.

The natural order is that big countries like Iran want to be big in their neighborhood. We can't stop it. Israel is small. Its role should be commensurately small.

It will take decades for us build goodwill with the Muslim populations. In the mean time, just contain the unrest without taking sides, except when chemical or biological weapons are used, or during other humanitarian calls.

Submitted by SD Realtor on September 4, 2013 - 1:35pm.

FIH I know you are not saying we take sides. What I am saying is that it doesn't matter. I absolutely understand your rationale for a strike. My point is that you need to consider all of the other variables are in the region in order to make your point. Furthermore your point may be viewed as meaningless by many of the organizations out there regardless of whether they are terrorist orgs, sovereigns or just millions and millions of ordinary citizens. Finally that could be used as fodder to incite more violence.

Is it worth taking that risk? Some people say yes, personally I think not... and it is questionable that it would accomplish the intent.

Submitted by Want_to_Retire on September 4, 2013 - 1:41pm.

Totally agree, justice and the Middle East, in it's entirety, have been strangers for decades.

It seems everyone here, regardless of their position on strikes against Syria, are agreed that the Assad regime used chemical weapons against the opposition. Did I miss an episode of our war drumming MSM where someone laid out any type of believable, detailed evidence that the regime was actually responsible? For the life of me I think Putin is the only one making any sense here. Why in the world would Assad do this when he's kicking ass and the UN inspectors are in town? Where are these mostly classified 'evidence' coming from? Why can't we show it to the Russians and let them try to debunk it? Sure sounds like desperate and fanatical rebels wouldn't mind false flagging some captured chemical shells on civilians and other, unfriendly rebel groups to get a boost in their failing efforts.

Submitted by SK in CV on September 4, 2013 - 3:02pm.

FlyerInHi wrote:
Sdr, I think Israel and SA want us to strike Syria.

Why would Israel want it?

Submitted by Want_to_Retire on September 4, 2013 - 3:21pm.

Well, AIPAC seems to be pretty gung-ho..

New York Times Deletes This Paragraph In Which White House Says AIPAC Is Key To War
Read more at http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2013/09/l...

AIPAC calls for Congress to authorize Syria action
Read more at http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2013/09/l...

Submitted by spdrun on September 4, 2013 - 3:42pm.

To be clear, AIPAC is not Israel.

Submitted by SK in CV on September 4, 2013 - 3:46pm.

Want_to_Retire wrote:
Well, AIPAC seems to be pretty gung-ho..

New York Times Deletes This Paragraph In Which White House Says AIPAC Is Key To War
Read more at http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2013/09/l...

AIPAC calls for Congress to authorize Syria action
Read more at http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2013/09/links-9413.html#qUu4UcVwyfkspe0i.99

Yes, I've seen that. It doesn't really answer my question. It doesn't make much sense.

Submitted by FlyerInHi on September 4, 2013 - 5:49pm.

SK in CV wrote:
FlyerInHi wrote:
Sdr, I think Israel and SA want us to strike Syria.

Why would Israel want it?

Because Iran supports Assad?

Submitted by SD Realtor on September 4, 2013 - 7:26pm.

Israel simply wants to be assured that the US has their back. Not really for this situation but for the much larger issue that is Iran and their nuclear development. You make it sound like Israel likes war but they do not. Right now they are not really publicly saying anything. They may view this simply as a test of the personal resolve Obama may have, more then they want a strike on Syria. Israel is much more comfortable understanding and knowing the enemies they have and have had for decades rather then having to accommodate for newer and potentially more radical ones. So honestly they are content with a nice simply stalemate in Syria as long as it does not spill into their own borders. They know Assad and they know Hezbollah. What they do not want is a more radical presence taking over with large stockpiles of weapons laying around.

Saudi Arabia is a totally different matter. You don't need to look far to find serious connections between SA and extremist groups. This is all primarily due to Shia verses Sunni sects. As Iraq fell, that tilts the power balance in a fairly strong manner to the Shia sect which SA is not. Look into the matter and you see that SA is probably one of the strongest backers of the rebel forces.

This is not necessarily a good thing.

Honestly it is a really complex situation. Several parties have a vested interest in the outcome but they are all in the interest of self preservation. There is nothing wrong with that.

Once more, you seem to boiling your decision into two distinct classes. First, we need to do this to show "them" whoever them is, that they will have pain inflicted upon them if they use chemical weapons. Second, that it is justified to do this because this or that nation "wants us to".

You seem to have little to no regard for possible negative outcomes that frankly can result is many many more deaths, more refugees, and can lead to further destabilization of the entire region.

Sorry, it just makes no sense to me.

Submitted by FlyerInHi on September 5, 2013 - 12:03am.

I brought up Israel and Saudi Arabia because you alluded that a strike could negatively affect them in some way. If they are not worried about it, then why should we?

It's kind of a circular argument to say that Israel is looking to us to strike Syria to test Obama's resolve, but they don't really want him to.

We don't owe Israel any protection. I feel offended that you think Israel has the right to test our president's resolve to defend them. As a red blooded American i am offended that our politicians feel they need to declare they are friends of Israel. Not our job to protect Israel the way they wish.

We can become friends with Iran if we develop the polical will. If Iran turns out to be good to us, we shouldn't care how a strong Iran diminishes Israel.

That's what a real hands-off foreign policy Is. Make friends and build business relationships with everyone, develop trade and make money (Iran is a huge untapped market). And let them fight their own battles.

Honestly, I don't see how an Israel focused foreign policy is beneficial to us. It costs us billions every year. If we want to cut spending, that's a great place to start.

Btw, I think Ron Paul is with me on this (except for striking Syria for the use of chemical weapons). Rand Paul might be more pro Israel for religious reasons. But I don't really follow their positions. I'll read up later.

Submitted by SD Realtor on September 5, 2013 - 7:17am.

Forget it. All of your posts have not addressed what happens with all the possibilities of negative outcomes.

I guess not addressing those possibilities is the best way to argue your point.

Submitted by livinincali on September 5, 2013 - 8:03am.

Want_to_Retire wrote:

It seems everyone here, regardless of their position on strikes against Syria, are agreed that the Assad regime used chemical weapons against the opposition. Did I miss an episode of our war drumming MSM where someone laid out any type of believable, detailed evidence that the regime was actually responsible? For the life of me I think Putin is the only one making any sense here. Why in the world would Assad do this when he's kicking ass and the UN inspectors are in town? Where are these mostly classified 'evidence' coming from? Why can't we show it to the Russians and let them try to debunk it? Sure sounds like desperate and fanatical rebels wouldn't mind false flagging some captured chemical shells on civilians and other, unfriendly rebel groups to get a boost in their failing efforts.

I tend to agree that I'm not sure that Assad was responsible. Obviously that's a pretty large point when it comes to punishing responsible parties. Just another reason that maybe we should wait for some more evidence before making a knee jerk reaction to this incident.

I think there's a fair amount of proof that a chemical weapons were used. I don't think there's a ton of supporting evidence that the weapons use was ordered by Assad. Certainly there's other parties like the rebels and Saudi Arabia that would like the US to strike Assad military forces. They might be just as likely or perhaps more likely to use those weapons in an attempt to bring the US into the mix.

Submitted by SK in CV on September 5, 2013 - 8:24am.

livinincali wrote:

I tend to agree that I'm not sure that Assad was responsible. Obviously that's a pretty large point when it comes to punishing responsible parties. Just another reason that maybe we should wait for some more evidence before making a knee jerk reaction to this incident.

I think there's a fair amount of proof that a chemical weapons were used. I don't think there's a ton of supporting evidence that the weapons use was ordered by Assad. Certainly there's other parties like the rebels and Saudi Arabia that would like the US to strike Assad military forces. They might be just as likely or perhaps more likely to use those weapons in an attempt to bring the US into the mix.

Generally, I agree here....a few points....

I've read dozens of articles purporting to tell the "real truth" with "evidence and stuff". Some of them present compelling arguments, but not a single one of them has shown me actual proof of who was responsible for the chemical attacks. (At this point, i'm pretty convinced they did occur.) And this goes for arguments going both ways, both that the Assad regime was responsible or some other party was responsible. Videos showing what appear to be low tech rockets aren't terribly compelling. There is no way I can know if they're authentic. I've seen videos from that part of the world that show people being shot and killed, and a week later videos of the very same dead guy, purporting to show him rescuing a wounded child. Wearing the exact same clothes he was wearing a week earlier when he was shot dead. The fake video industry is alive and well in that part of the world. And those fake videos could come from either side.

I'm not sure it's meaningful whether Assad either ordered or had knowledge, if in fact, the weapons were used by the Assad regime. If they came from the Assad regime, his government is responsible, irrespective of whether he was directly involved.

The argument "why would they do it" is just as compelling from either side. Would rebels kill their own? It's conceivable.

Right now i'm leaning towards accepting they came from the Assad regime, but with not much more than a 60-40 confidence level. But even if it was 100%, I'd be opposed to US involvement. That could change. More shit could happen.

Submitted by Want_to_Retire on September 5, 2013 - 10:13am.

I agree that neither side has shown any real, detailed evidence, although our MSM certainly treats Kerry's non-evidence , as well as that our our allies (France, Germany) as sacrosanct, although all the 'good stuff' is 'classified' and what's been artfully leaked sounds like 3rd party hearsay regardless. So really, both the pro (Kerry et al.) and con (Putin, anti-war activists) are resorting to logic-based persuation, and on that front I think Putin is running rings around a surprisingly pugnacious Kerry.

Given Kerry's medal throwing record you'd think he would be more circumspect. I suspect he (1) feels pretty self righteous because he (alone) is convinced by the oh so classified evidence and (2) could this be preparation of a no longer soft on commies or whomever Kerry presidential run?

Submitted by no_such_reality on September 5, 2013 - 10:33am.

So why do we need to be the world's police force again?

Submitted by FlyerInHi on September 5, 2013 - 11:13am.

SD Realtor wrote:
Forget it. All of your posts have not addressed what happens with all the possibilities of negative outcomes.

I guess not addressing those possibilities is the best way to argue your point.

You didn't address potential negative outcomes either, except in a general remark about possible retaliation against us and our allies.

If our allies are concerned let them speak out.

As far as our interests, people hate us so much already that it won't make any difference.

I'm only supporting a strike as a "humanitarian no" against chemical weapons. That's what it was about when Kerry first spoke out.

My opinion can change.

I'm now hearing talk of degrading Assad's military. This is perhaps an opportunity for hawks to change the military situation on the ground and design a political outcome of their liking. That would mean our directly fighting the civil war and is not acceptable.

I hope Obama knows what he's doing. We should have learned in Iraq that militarily controlling a country doesn't necessarily lead to the political outcome we wish. I find it highly ironic that Iran is sustaining Assad by way of our ally, Iraq.

Submitted by SD Realtor on September 5, 2013 - 11:28am.

Um yes I did post possible outcomes in my posts. We attack, then Isreal is attacked, then Isreal attacks whoever attacked them. More people are killed. More refugees pour out of Syria. More violence and more death. Furthermore I also pointed out that there is no idea who would come into power if Assad is gone. That there would be disparate groups that would then have access to lots of weapons left in the vacuum including chemical weapons.

I like it. Your humanitarian no against chemical weapons involves more violence and death. Furthermore the entire world is not yet convinced of who even released the weapons. Finally the groups your humanitarian actions will be aiding have executed lots of innocent people.

Strange logic but I guess it works for ya.

Submitted by NotCranky on September 5, 2013 - 11:37am.

no_such_reality wrote:
So why do we need to be the world's police force again?

"World's police force" is not a very accurate description. The policing is too selective and follows our interests around. Some people say we act like a school yard bully and there is some bullying, but I think we act more like mob bosses, ruthlessly attempting to cultivate and maintain hegemony on what we see as our prize "turf".

Submitted by FlyerInHi on September 5, 2013 - 9:24pm.

Sdr, we differ on this one issue.

But I very glad that public opinion has shifted against intervention in general. Back a decade ago, I think the public was mostly for the invasion of Iraq. We will think much more carefully before committing militarily.

Submitted by NotCranky on September 6, 2013 - 9:06pm.

McCain got his butt handed to him at another town hall meeting, this time in beautiful Prescott AZ. Basically pretending to himself that AZ wants what he wants....a whole lot of war. Can't be farther from the truth.

Hilary endorsed O's proposal. Can't remember where I saw it.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.