If you would read the article I posted that makes the case FOR the “red line”, the US position is:
The White House argues there’s good reason to view chemical weapons attacks differently.
“The use of chemical weapons is contrary to the standards adopted by the vast majority of nations and international efforts since World War I to eliminate the use of such weapons,” spokesman Jay Carney said this week. “… The use of these weapons on a mass scale and a threat of proliferation is a threat to our national interests and a concern to the entire world.”
He added, “Without question, there is ongoing barbarity in Syria, perpetrated by the Assad regime, and we have provided substantial assistance to the Syrian opposition and will continue to provide substantial assistance to the Syrian opposition in their struggle with Assad.”
Obama, in an interview with CNN last week, said, “When you start seeing chemical weapons used on a large scale… that starts getting to some core national interests that the United States has, both in terms of us making sure that weapons of mass destruction are not proliferating, as well as needing to protect our allies, our bases in the region.”
The only other sensible argument I could parse from it is this:
*“They’re so indiscriminate,” says Don Borelli, a former FBI official now with The Soufan Group, a security consultancy. “At least there’s some discrimination in conventional weapons.”
“Modern weaponry, while it’s grown more lethal, has also grown more precise,” says Michael Rubin, a former Pentagon official now with the American Enterprise Institute. But chemical agents disperse to affect large numbers of people and “can produce horror for a lifetime.”
Some conventional attacks do the same, he acknowledges.
But there’s another reason that it makes sense to view a chemical attack as a reason for international intervention, Rubin says.
Rep. Peter King: We have to act in Syria U.S. considers military action in Syria
“We want to establish the parameters of warfare. If you don’t, combatants will keep pressing the boundaries. Ultimately, the question is, should we have any boundaries in war or not?”
It’s a slippery slope, he says. If a chemical weapons attack goes unchecked, what about some other form of weapon of mass destruction – a biological or nuclear attack?
*
Does anyone have an estimate of how much chemical agent it would have taken in order to cause the alleged casualties? I have a WAG that it would have taken more than a single BM-21 truck, but less than a battery. IOW, the rebels (if it were a false flag) would have had to have knocked over an arsenal, as a single chemical bomb would not have been likely to have caused, what? 1,000 killed is the latest figure?
In any event, shooting cruise missiles won’t do a damned thing to either stop more chemical attacks from occurring in Syria or (far more desirable) secure the things so that any of the Al Qaeda offshoots don’t get the bright idea of using them in the U.S.
Yeah. I’m not on board with attacking alleged chemical weapons sites until a multi-national jury is in. I’m not in favor of the US acting unilaterally, even if we (it) assembles a sham of a coalition with the UK and say…France.
The point of the article from CNN I posted, and it’s a good one, is why now? 100,000 people have died and the USA did what…supply some small arms? Even if the chemical attack accusations are true, they seem to be very limited in scope and you can’t tell me a mother would prefer the death of her sons from one attack over another. It’s all death either way, and conventional weapons account for the vast majority of rebel (and government) deaths.
So where do we stand? Why does Obama have to act? Who cares if he said some stupid shit about a “red line” being crossed? Everyone in the WORLD knows we are powerful and have a vast array of weapons at our disposal, guided by satellites, lasers, etc. We COULD crush the Syrian government if we wanted to but why would we? Who cares if they make threats? Oooh, America the “Paper Tiger”. Get the fuck outta here. Ignoring threats from inferior nations is something mature nations just do. And getting involved in their civil war violates our core “avoid foreign entanglements” beliefs…and I am no isolationist.
One of the lessons from Iraq to me is something we did called “removing a buffer”. Saddam, as brutal and as much of an asshole as he was, was indeed a BUFFER against the hegemony of Iran in the region. In hindsight, he was contained and it would ultimately serve the US’s purposes to keep him contained and to keep Iran believing that HE HAD WMD’s. Once we removed that possibility from a fragile structure of a religious minority ruling a religious majority (the religion Iran shares) through fear, the buffer was lost. Hilarity ensued.
This latest episode with Syria seems to me to be more of the violation of our obligation set forth long ago to NOT get entangled in issues on foreign soil. I know that ship has sailed long ago, but it was a core belief of our founding fathers and I think it bears countenance.
If we don’t interfere in places like Rwanda, Somalia (in force like we should have), Nigeria, whatever then why here? This is a political ploy and we should avoid it. This is not some gambit for control of resources (“US interests”) as far as I can tell. It’s a humanitarian disaster, yes, but…why here? Why now? What is the benefit to the USA?
I think if Assad’s denials were accompanied by something like, “Oh by the way, one of our poison gas depots was seized by rebels, and we think they used that gas to set us up”, why then things would look different. AFAICT there isn’t any plausible explanation for the attack other than that Assad’s forces did it. (but let’s not be too hasty in our conclusions)
Still, the attack amounts to ~1% of the casualties of a conflict that has been raging for ~3 years. It amounts to a “moral obscenity”, sure, but you could apply that to plenty of other aspects of Syria these days.
I am going to recommend a Formal Warning: Syria- Do Not continue to use WMDs in any context. Do Not share WMDs with others. We know what you did and will fuck your shit up if you tempt us.
I don’t even want the US to threaten them at all unless the dispersal of chemical weapons becomes an obvious method for the Assad regime. I agree with the US stance that these weapons, which have been sanctioned against since forever, need to be controlled. But many nations have them, including the US, despite what our government might say. I am certain we have stockpiles of VX, nerve gas, bio weapons, whatever under the Sun…just like I suppose Russia does.
With that said, I don’t think nations like Syria should a)have them or b)use them.
And if they do, then over time they must suffer the consequences of their use. I don’t think we’ve reached that threshold yet in light of how many have been killed by “normal” weapons already, and I hope we don’t get there.
This has the makings of an ugly proxy war between the US and Russia, which COULD lead to further conflicts. And then there’s Israel. What are they going to do? If chemical weapon dispersals are proven over time, they are not going to sit for it and they will take matters into their own hands…which will unleash a whole new volley of criticism on the US even if we had nothing to do with it. Which could also start a huge regional war, which nobody wants. Maybe Iran does. Not sure.
It looks like there will be some sort of attack on Syria-Obama will use Biden as a mouthpiece to sell this disaster to the American people.
We can only wait and wonder what new things will come out of this-suppose Assad decides to attack Israel? I have a bad feeling about this.
And I’m right there with you. Any attack on Syria is likely to inflame the situation and possibly engulf the region. Doing nothing right now would be the best of several bad options.
I guess the idea is that we will just make it very expensive for Assad to use CWs. It will cost him some air power and maybe some command and control centers. Then he can back to killing his people like civilized men do!
Do we want to drag Iran into a conflict? Do we want them to shut down the Strait of Hormuz? Will Assad respond to attacks by releasing more gas? Has the civil war kept Syrians too busy to chant Death to America? Do we have any interests in Syria? Is this really different from the other 99k people who have been killed while we watched? If the attacks don’t persuade anybody, do we send in the Army, launch more missiles, nuke Damascus, what?
Now, I’m not sure how reliable thisis . . . because both links attribute the story to something called the “EU Times,” but the links are dead, and while googling finds several hits for the “EU Times,” they are all dead links, and there is no Wikipedia page for such a publication . . . but if it’s for real . . . :eek:
If it’s for real, Putin threatens to respond to any Western attack on Syria by attacking . . . Saudi Arabia?!
Your point seemed to be that it’s the Constitution that governs the President’s authority, not his own claims or that of any other, including his party.
Your party’s leaders (and, I assume, you too) showed no interest in any such restraint during Bush’s decision to get Iraq for something or other. Yet you very prissily show such compunction when the President of another party is in a situation himself (one that, I might note, has some actual facts behind it, never mind that at no time has actually risking any American lives been discussed). So why else could you be treating this situation differently, other than because of the identity of the President involved?
How are *you *not being hypocritical here? :dubious:
And let’s not even bother with your equating “sexual shenanigans” with starting a fucking war of aggression. Wow.
So the two of them have different interpretations of the law/constitution, neither of which is embodied in their respective parties’ platforms AFAIK. Where’s the hypocrisy?
Not ignoring it at all, merely pointing out the gaping holes in both logic and fact in your effort to demonstrate More Liberal Hypocrisy (you fail, btw).
Let me ask another way: When before have you ever had these compunctions about a President asking Congress for support for a military operation? Why are you starting now?
Now, I’m not sure how reliable