Bullshit. If ever the American public was informed about a conflict, it’s now. Too many in a row to ignore due to you usual 6:00 o’clock MSN brainwash. This time, it seems to me, Americans want the real lowdown --what Feinstein saw that made her turn against her constituents and yet didn’t do a thing to those that were against this attack from the start.
Let the common people judge – is that not what democracy is all about. What does Obama have to fear? He’s not omnipotent, surely he can admit a mistake now and then – especially one that has some of the most powerful nations in the world on a hair-trigger. It’s not about “saving face” it’s about survival. And surely you know that Syria poses fuck-all a threat to the US.
No matter how you try to sell it. Mosquito vs Elephant is just not realistic. And US citizens know that all too damn well. Now, stir the hornet’s nest and get Iran and Russia (and possibly China) in there and all bets are off.
If anything this new war is opposed because Americans are a little too informed.
The whole “despot with WMD posing imminent threat to the US” schtick is getting a little long in the tooth. Americans have grown so distrusting and cynical about their government that the boys in charge will have to get a little more creative when it comes to specious reasons for firing up our war machine.
I count myself as undecided but most likely against attacking Syria. However, I agree that most people don’t understand the first thing about what’s going on. And I would add that a good number of posters in this thread don’t have a very strong grasp, either.
All the discussions of parallels to Iraq (whether it is talking about the cost of occupying that country for most of a decade) or bogus intelligence makes me cringe, because this situation really isn’t like Iraq at all. If you think it is, you don’t know what you’re talking about. It reminds me of people who thought that Gulf War I was going to be another Vietnam; or the people who thought that Gulf War II was going to be like Gulf War I. Well, those people were wrong then, and comparing the Iraq invasion to what’s being proposed today is just as wrong.
There are good reasons to be opposed to attacking Syria. Re-arguing what happened in 2003 isn’t one of them.
I agree that I don’t think Obama is going to lead into a ground war in Syria. But there are erie parallels to how they are going about selling this thing to us.
The parallels are not substantive, they are superficial to the point of being shiny objects that are attracting people’s attention and distracting from actual issues.
Really not up to him, John. You start a war and you best be prepared for what you are not prepared for. In short, while X might be the most likely response the US will face, Y is certainly not out of the question for Syria and its allies.
What will “Y” be? Who the fuck knows. Therein lies the problem. Very little predictable about war – even if you are totally confident of who’ll prevail at the end. Bet Napoleon was more than a bit surprised at the outcome of the Peninsular War. Guerrilla warfare? Who would have thunk it could cause so much damage?
How did Obama choose this mission for himself? I believe he understands his role as President of the United States when something like what happened occurred. Is no U.S. punitive response to the use of banned chemical weapons to gas women and children by their government a choice for the leader of the free world to make?
I do have to applaud Boehner and Cantor in the House for their very early siding with the President.
Apparently they didn’t need any selling to know what is right.
Did you punish yourselves for Napalm, Agent Orange or White Phosphorus in Vietnam & Iraq (Fallujah) respectively? Or how about giving CWs to Saddam to gas the Kurds? Where was the outrage then?
THe world doesn’t follow because the world has always looked for an excuse not to take action.
If a weak country can use WMD without punishment, of what value are anti-WMD treaties? We certainly won’t punish the big countries if we won’t punish the small ones. Arms limitation treaties are worthless.
Some issues, like aggression against other nations, do not require a nation to be a signatory. International norms should be enforced, and one of those international redlines is WMD use.
I think we also know that if Syria had signed the convention, it wouldn’t change anything. Treaties of that nature are worthless.
One International Norm is that a nation does not bomb another nation without approval by the International Community. Normally, that means the UNSC, but some might argue that NATO is another definitive body.
Which International Body is calling for military action against Syria?
And please remember that enforcement of “international norms” needn’t be military in nature. Still, if such a military action needs to be taken, let’s let another country, like France, have its moment in the sun.
No, it does not have to be military, but it does have to be sufficient to stop the crime. The international community lacks credibility because it tends to take face saving actions rather than effective actions.
