It’s an expression that’s been used in reference to Syria for several decades. Hama is the fourth largest city in Syria. Back in the early eighties there was a resistance group that was trying to overthrow the Assad regime. Hafez Assad (this was the father of the current ruler) shot every member of the group he could get his hands on. That was typical dictator stuff.
But Assad noticed that a lot of the members of the group were coming from Hama. So in February 1982, Assad sent the army to surround Hama. And then he told them to attack the city.
And they did it. For the next twenty-seven days the Syrian Army attacked one of Syria’s largest cities. About forty thousand people from Hama were killed along with around a thousand soldiers.
Shortly afterwards, the expression Hama Rules arose. It meant there are no rules. There are no limits to what the government of Syria will do.
Of course, what that means is that Assad has lost control of his chemical arsenal, which makes intervention even more urgent. If some officer can decide to use sarin against Syrian civilians - for whatever reason - then another officer can decide to use it against anyone.
So the USA decides to “punish” Assad by firing a few cruise missiles or drones? That would really work out-innocent children would be killed (lots of bodies for the TV cameras), muslims would denounce the USA, and Assad would laugh it off.
Obama would appear even more impotent than he already is…sounds like a plan to me!:smack:
Ah yes. Cruise missle diplomacy. When you absolutely MUST prove to the world that the President of the United States can be as brutally violent & bloodthirsty as any Third World shithole dictator :rolleyes:
Oh, um… that’s tough. Yes, it’s your problem. Hope you can find a way to manage it.
Obvious first step is to find out what happened and who did it and why, but I imagine you’re working on that.
What makes you say “everybody” is eager? They aren’t.
Obama claimed that using WMDs would cross a red line, which put him into a corner. Now WMDs have been used. Now Obama needs to do something stupid to back up the stupid thing that he said.
Like I said, he will lob some missiles at where the chemical weapons used to be, shake his finger at Assad, and say “Now let that be a lesson to you”. Which will achieve very little in terms of preventing or deterring future WMD use, but that is not the point.
The way I see it is this: if it’s a matter of principle - of saying that chemical weapons should not be used, period - then it’s America’s responsibility. You’re the sheriff, after all. However, if it’s a matter of security, of preventing chemical weapons from being used against Syria’s neighbors, than I prefer that my own government deal with it.
So far, it seems like the first case. That may change.
USA first fucked that country up by supporting the rebels, and now it looks that it will do so by direct military intervention. Its really sad seeing such a great country acting this way and even more sad seeing the plight of Syrians because of this.
My worry also. We’ve been sucker-punched before, and I’m sure that if al Quaida is involved in this (as they most assuredly are), they would have no compunction about killing a few rebels and civilians in order to have us start using missiles and drones against the Assad regime. I sincerely hope that the Obama administration is doing better due diligence than the Bush people did.
Was that intended ironically? If not, I hope you can explain how that situation came to be.
Unlike some, in this thread and elsewhere, who remain stuck in Cold War and earlier notions of national interest above all, higher concepts of morality be damned, I do recognize that we in the “civilized” world have responsibilities to our fellow humans. Our ability to act gives us a moral duty to act, even though we can’t always. What remains for us is to identify what we can do and then do it. Or, we can just wring our hands about the evil of it all, emptily mouth the words “never again” or something similar and then let it happen again anyway, and be the kind of people we ought to be ashamed to be. Oh, yes, we can always go to church and tell ourselves we’re forgiven for it; there’s that.
I wish I could believe that, but so far the UN inspection team hasn’t had time to do much more than look around and say, “Yep, we’re in Syria all right.”
I think we can very safely assume that the Obama Administration is following a preordained conclusion here.
As of this morning, John Kerry is entirely certain that Syria used WMDs. Before the Iraq war, John Kerry was entirely certain that Saddam had WMDs. Was he lying then, is he lying now, was he lying both times, or perhaps, both times, he is making statements that are generally supported by the evidence?
^^^ I always figured we had a source close to Saddam, and Saddam was being lied to by his own people about WMDs.
Dunno what’s up with today’s situation.
It’s not the what, but the who that is in question, it seems. Kerry is reporting what he’s seen with his own eyes, but he hasn’t said that it’s Assad who’s doing it, AFAIK.
