Page 5 of 19

Re: Syria Civil War Threatens to Spread

Posted: Wed Aug 28, 2013 8:37 pm UTC
by yedidyak
LaserGuy wrote:Maybe the best thing to do is just target Assad personally. I know that you're not supposed to target foreign leaders or whatever, but if you're going to bomb the country anyway, it seems to make the most sense to me to bomb precisely the person responsible for the chemical attack.


That's actually probably the other Assad brother. Allegedly it was his personal brigade that did it.

Re: Syria Civil War Threatens to Spread

Posted: Wed Aug 28, 2013 8:44 pm UTC
by Thesh
LaserGuy wrote:I know that you're not supposed to target foreign leaders or whatever


Wasn't targeting foreign leaders specifically exactly what we were doing in Iraq in 2003? We dropped a bomb on a restaurant filled with innocent people because we thought Saddam Hussein might be in it.

Re: Syria Civil War Threatens to Spread

Posted: Wed Aug 28, 2013 8:58 pm UTC
by Tyndmyr
Thesh wrote:
LaserGuy wrote:I know that you're not supposed to target foreign leaders or whatever


Wasn't targeting foreign leaders specifically exactly what we were doing in Iraq in 2003? We dropped a bomb on a restaurant filled with innocent people because we thought Saddam Hussein might be in it.


In a war, it's considered legit. Certainly, taking out Hitler early in WW2 would have been considered awesome. Killing leaders outside of a war is a little more dubious. Words like "assassination" get thrown around, and most leaders are, er, incentivized for that to not become a means for countries to resolve differences.

Re: Syria Civil War Threatens to Spread

Posted: Fri Aug 30, 2013 8:02 am UTC
by sigsfried
British parliament rejected military intervention. Cameron losing control over British foreign policy is big, it is unheard of for Parliament to vote against the government on foreign policy. While Cameron doesn't have to listen to Parliament he said he will, and failing to do so could have caused a constitutional crisis.

Paddy Ashdown suggests this is isolationism, and the political consequences of this which won't please America especially as UKIP strengthens means the UK is managing to isolated itself.

Re: Syria Civil War Threatens to Spread

Posted: Fri Aug 30, 2013 8:02 am UTC
by D.B.
Well hell. Uk parliament votes against intervention.

Honestly didn't see that coming.

EDIT: Ninja'd again.

Re: Syria Civil War Threatens to Spread

Posted: Fri Aug 30, 2013 8:28 am UTC
by Diadem
Sometimes international politics just confuses me.

"Hey Britain, these guys are related to some terrorist that attacked us. Wanna bomb 'em?" "Yeah, sure"
"Hey Britain, these guys are giant dicks. Wanna bomb 'em?" "Yeah, sure"
"Hey Britain, these guys have lots of oil. Wanna bomb 'em?" "Yeah, sure"
"Hey Britain, these guys looked at us funny. Wanna bomb 'em?" "Yeah, sure"
"Hey Britain, we're bored. Wanna bomb someone?" "Yeah, sure"
"Hey Britain, this horrible dictator used weapons of mass destruction on his own population. Wanna bomb him? "Hell no, who do you think we are?"

I'm not saying intervening in Syria is absolutely without a doubt black-or-white the right move. I have lots of doubts about it, in fact. But this seems like a very strange place to draw a line in the sand. And an unexpected one as well.

Was the reason for this no perhaps mostly domestic? As in, is this a way of showing displeasure with Cameron by the parliament?

Re: Syria Civil War Threatens to Spread

Posted: Fri Aug 30, 2013 8:48 am UTC
by sigsfried
Not really. A seizable backbench rebellion was maybe made easier by internal politics, but it wasn't even just the Lib Dems (the junior partner in the coalition).
Cameron had already been forced to water down the Bill, to one calling for military action in principle but not immediately. Plus there are less dangerous ways for Parliament to show displeasure.

People look at Iraq and Afghanistan (but mostly Iraq) and don't think we are safer or the people of Iraq are safer as a result of our action. Only 8% of the UK population supported this action, so maybe some marginal seat MPs thought it would help them (but I doubt it and the MPs in question aren't particularly ones in marginals [so far as any Lib Dem can be said to not be in a marginal now]).

Re: Syria Civil War Threatens to Spread

Posted: Fri Aug 30, 2013 9:31 am UTC
by Zamfir
I suppose the end of Blair is a major factor. He turned Labour in a very hawkish direction, and he also had a strong majority . In those days, wars were a Labour thing with significant Conservative support to back it up. Now it's a conservative thing with far less opposition support than Blair had.

For example, loads of Labour MPs voted against the Iraq war. That still left the government with plenty of support for the war. Cameron this time has defectors in his own party but unlike Blair he can't afford to lose them. His majority is shaky in the best of times, and labour is a more skeptical opposition.

Re: Syria Civil War Threatens to Spread

Posted: Fri Aug 30, 2013 10:15 am UTC
by sigsfried
Blair I suppose finally got his legacy, something he was definitely keen to make sure happened. Not sure it was the legacy he wanted, but then he also wanted to be seen as pro gay rights but it fell to Conservatives to pass marriage equality laws because he wouldn't do it.

That said Labour/SNP/PC did put forward a proposal on intervention with UN backing, something Cameron declined to lend his support to. This isn't simply a case of Labour being anti-war.

Re: Syria Civil War Threatens to Spread

Posted: Fri Aug 30, 2013 11:14 am UTC
by Mutex
sigsfried wrote:...but then he also wanted to be seen as pro gay rights but it fell to Conservatives to pass marriage equality laws because he wouldn't do it.


OT, but I can't let this go without pointing out that more Conservatives voted against that bill than for it, despite Cameron being the one to propose it. It only got through thanks to huge support from Labour and the Lib Dems. As you were :)

Re: Syria Civil War Threatens to Spread

Posted: Fri Aug 30, 2013 12:33 pm UTC
by CorruptUser
Diadem wrote:I'm not saying intervening in Syria is absolutely without a doubt black-or-white the right move. I have lots of doubts about it, in fact. But this seems like a very strange place to draw a line in the sand. And an unexpected one as well.


Or maybe Britain was stretched too thin to help? Or maybe Britain doesn't think replacing a genocidal Assad with a genocidal theocracy is an improvement worth getting involved for?

Re: Syria Civil War Threatens to Spread

Posted: Fri Aug 30, 2013 12:44 pm UTC
by Red Hal
Or maybe we've had enough of interfering on foreign soil. I mean we pretty much fucked up half the world a sesquicentury ago; perhaps our appetite for war is waning. Not to mention that Iraq x 2 + Afghanistan haven't exactly been resounding successes.

Re: Syria Civil War Threatens to Spread

Posted: Fri Aug 30, 2013 1:19 pm UTC
by sigsfried
I don't think it helped that Cameron was keen to say we wouldn't be taking sides or supporting the rebels. It is hard to take seriously the idea that missile and bomb strikes against the Syrian government wouldn't be taking sides and it looked like we were being dragged into a bigger conflict that was out of the governments control.

I don't like the way many that are arguing now saying we should be involved because of the importance of the special relationship. Opposition concerns including civilian deaths, if the special relationship means we have to kill civilians when America wants us to, then surely that is too big a price to pay. Plus I doubt America really cares what Britain does and has no reason to value the special relationship, as evidenced by its decline as Britain has declined as a world power.

Re: Syria Civil War Threatens to Spread

Posted: Fri Aug 30, 2013 5:08 pm UTC
by Wnderer
But why doesn't President Obama need to get Congressional approval? Not getting Congress's approval is stupid and wrong. Stupid, because if Congress votes it down he can blame Congress for screwing with his red-line and save face that way. If Congress approves it, he has legitimate support to take significant action in Syria. Congressional support for action in Syria which carries with it the serious threat of US involvement is a bigger blow than some lame gesture that doesn't have any real force on the outcome of the war. It's wrong not to go to Congress because it neuters the War Powers Act further and hands dangerous power to future administrations. Obama is the bad precedent president.

Re: Syria Civil War Threatens to Spread

Posted: Fri Aug 30, 2013 5:21 pm UTC
by schismtracer
Wnderer wrote:It's wrong not to go to Congress because it neuters the War Powers Act further and hands dangerous power to future administrations. Obama is the bad precedent president.


That precedent long predates Obama, he's just continuing the trend. Remember that the last time the US properly declared war was World War II.

Re: Syria Civil War Threatens to Spread

Posted: Fri Aug 30, 2013 5:51 pm UTC
by Wnderer
schismtracer wrote:
Wnderer wrote:It's wrong not to go to Congress because it neuters the War Powers Act further and hands dangerous power to future administrations. Obama is the bad precedent president.


That precedent long predates Obama, he's just continuing the trend. Remember that the last time the US properly declared war was World War II.


Not the War Powers Act. Time to hit the Wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Act

The War Powers Resolution of 1973 (50 U.S.C. 1541-1548)[1] is a federal law intended to check the president's power to commit the United States to an armed conflict without the consent of Congress. The resolution was adopted in the form of a United States Congress joint resolution; this provides that the President can send U.S. armed forces into action abroad only by declaration of war by Congress, "statutory authorization," or in case of "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."



And some history.
Spoiler:
Under the United States Constitution, war powers are divided. Congress has the power to declare war, raise and support the armed forces, control the war funding (Article I, Section 8), and has "Power … to make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution … all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof", while the President is commander-in-chief of the military (Article II, Section 2). It is generally agreed that the commander-in-chief role gives the President power to repel attacks against the United States[6][7] and makes the President responsible for leading the armed forces. In addition and as with all acts of the Congress, the President has the right to sign or veto congressional acts, such as a declaration of war.

During the Korean and Vietnam wars, the United States found itself involved for many years in situations of intense conflict without a declaration of war. Many members of Congress became concerned with the erosion of congressional authority to decide when the United States should become involved in a war or the use of armed forces that might lead to war. The War Powers Resolution was passed by both the House of Representatives and Senate but was vetoed by President Richard Nixon. By a two-thirds vote in each house, Congress overrode the veto and enacted the joint resolution into law on November 7, 1973.

Presidents have submitted 130[8] reports to Congress as a result of the War Powers Resolution, although only one (the Mayagüez incident) cited Section 4(a)(1) and specifically stated that forces had been introduced into hostilities or imminent danger.

Congress invoked the War Powers Resolution in the Multinational Force in Lebanon Act (P.L. 98-119), which authorized the Marines to remain in Lebanon for 18 months during 1982 and 1983. In addition, the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 1991 (Pub.L. 102–1) which authorized United States combat operations against Iraqi forces during the 1991 Gulf War, stated that it constituted specific statutory authorization within the meaning of the War Powers Resolution.

On November 9, 1993, the House used a section of the War Powers Resolution to state that U.S. forces should be withdrawn from Somalia by March 31, 1994; Congress had already taken this action in appropriations legislation. More recently under President Clinton, war powers were at issue in former Yugoslavia; Bosnia; Kosovo; Iraq, and Haiti, and under President George W. Bush in responding to terrorist attacks against the U.S. after September 11, 2001. "[I]n 1999, President Clinton kept the bombing campaign in Kosovo going for more than two weeks after the 60-day deadline had passed. Even then, however, the Clinton legal team opined that its actions were consistent with the War Powers Resolution because Congress had approved a bill funding the operation, which they argued constituted implicit authorization. That theory was controversial because the War Powers Resolution specifically says that such funding does not constitute authorization."[9] Clinton's actions in Kosovo were challenged by a member of Congress as a violation of the Wars Power Resolution in the D.C. Circuit case Campbell v. Clinton, but the court found the issue was a non-justiciable political question.[citation needed]

After the 1991 Gulf War, the use of force to obtain Iraqi compliance with United Nations resolutions, particularly through enforcement of Iraqi no-fly zones, remained a war powers issue. In October 2002 Congress enacted the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Pub.L. 107–243 which authorized President George W. Bush to use force as necessary to defend the United States against Iraq and enforce relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions.[10]

May 20, 2011, marked the 60th day of US combat in Libya (as part of the UN resolution) but the deadline arrived without President Obama seeking specific authorization from the US Congress.[11] President Obama, however, notified Congress that no authorization was needed,[12] since the US leadership was transferred to NATO,[13] and since US involvement is somewhat limited. On Friday, June 3, 2011, the US House of Representatives voted to rebuke President Obama for maintaining an American presence in the NATO operations in Libya, which they considered a violation of the War Powers Resolution.[14][15]

Re: Syria Civil War Threatens to Spread

Posted: Sat Aug 31, 2013 3:41 pm UTC
by gnutrino
Diadem wrote:Anyway, I don't think this use of chemical weapons can be allowed to go unpunished.


Sorry for turning up late to the thread but surely that ship has already sailed. Unless you count invading 2 years after the attack for something unrelated then leaving and spending a decade saying nasty things at the UN before finally stomping all over them for fairly dubious reasons as punishment I guess.

Re: the UK parliment vote, my understanding is that after all the flak Labour got after their justification for the Iraq war proved... questionable they wanted a guarantee that there'd be second vote after the UN weapons inspectors reported, while the motion that was presented mearly had a clause that military action would only be taken "if it was backed up by evidence from United Nations weapons inspectors" (paraphrasing), i.e the government would decide if the evidence was good enough rather than parliment. Strictly speaking it may be possible for Cameron to call another vote after the inspectors report is in and maybe get Labour's backing for it, assuming of course that by then the US, France et al. hadn't already gone in and it wasn't too late to still join in.

Re: Syria Civil War Threatens to Spread

Posted: Sat Aug 31, 2013 4:07 pm UTC
by Vahir
gnutrino wrote:
Diadem wrote:Anyway, I don't think this use of chemical weapons can be allowed to go unpunished.


Sorry for turning up late to the thread but surely that ship has already sailed. Unless you count invading 2 years after the attack for something unrelated then leaving and spending a decade saying nasty things at the UN before finally stomping all over them for fairly dubious reasons as punishment I guess.

Re: the UK parliment vote, my understanding is that after all the flak Labour got after their justification for the Iraq war proved... questionable they wanted a guarantee that there'd be second vote after the UN weapons inspectors reported, while the motion that was presented mearly had a clause that military action would only be taken "if it was backed up by evidence from United Nations weapons inspectors" (paraphrasing), i.e the government would decide if the evidence was good enough rather than parliment. Strictly speaking it may be possible for Cameron to call another vote after the inspectors report is in and maybe get Labour's backing for it, assuming of course that by then the US, France et al. hadn't already gone in and it wasn't too late to still join in.


Just because we failed to meet our international duties in the past doesn't mean we shouldn't try to meet them now.

Re: Syria Civil War Threatens to Spread

Posted: Sat Aug 31, 2013 5:54 pm UTC
by yedidyak
Obama's has called for a vote in Congress.

Did not see that coming.

Re: Syria Civil War Threatens to Spread

Posted: Sat Aug 31, 2013 6:11 pm UTC
by gnutrino
yedidyak wrote:Obama's has called for a vote in Congress.

Did not see that coming.


If I was the cynical type I'd say he was looking for someone to blame

Re: Syria Civil War Threatens to Spread

Posted: Sat Aug 31, 2013 9:10 pm UTC
by Wnderer
yedidyak wrote:Obama's has called for a vote in Congress.


Excellent. That is the way it supposed to work. Now all the Congressman and Senators can go on the record on where they stand before the attack and not just make political points with their brilliant hindsight afterwards. In most circumstances, I think they should support the president unless they really see impeding catastrophe from military action.

Re: Syria Civil War Threatens to Spread

Posted: Sat Aug 31, 2013 10:52 pm UTC
by jestingrabbit
gnutrino wrote:that ship has already sailed.


There are big differences between the situation around the Halabja attack and what's happening now.

Firstly, there is an ongoing civil war in Syria now, and a likelihood of further attacks in the coming months. Halabja was a post conflict punishment of an earlier Kurdish uprising. Are we just going to sit around whilst more non-combatants die from chemical attacks?

Secondly, today there is one global superpower. At the time of Halabja, there were two, and the more successful was allied with the perpetrators, whilst the other was gently falling apart. The US could act without any real change to the global power structure (although it would weaken the russian and chinese influence in the area were assad to fall, although I'd expect any regime that later established itself to also source its munitions from russia and china).

Just because the international community was silent during one attack, doesn't mean it should be silent now, or even that it should have been silent then.

Re: Syria Civil War Threatens to Spread

Posted: Sun Sep 01, 2013 3:03 am UTC
by Tyndmyr
gnutrino wrote:
yedidyak wrote:Obama's has called for a vote in Congress.

Did not see that coming.


If I was the cynical type I'd say he was looking for someone to blame


Seems reasonable. Blaming congress is sort of his favorite pasttime, and if we're honest, it's pretty easy to do much of the time. Congress normally blunders about ineffectively a lot.

It's not as likely to be effective now, though. The US isn't really gung-ho for war in the wake of Iraq and Afghanistan. If anything, they're looking for excuses to not get involved. This is not the turf Obama should be seeking a showdown with congress on.

Re: Syria Civil War Threatens to Spread

Posted: Sun Sep 01, 2013 3:01 pm UTC
by Wnderer
Tyndmyr wrote:It's not as likely to be effective now, though. The US isn't really gung-ho for war in the wake of Iraq and Afghanistan. If anything, they're looking for excuses to not get involved. This is not the turf Obama should be seeking a showdown with congress on.


It is more important for Obama to build a consensus on Syria, both domestically and internationally, than to throw some missiles at Syria. If he attacks Syria and comes out of it unable to perform any further action afterwards because he has made the US and his case unpopular; Syria will be stronger no matter what damage is done on the ground. He needs to take the long view of where we need to be next year, not next week. If he fails to get support this time, he can try again.

Re: Syria Civil War Threatens to Spread

Posted: Mon Sep 02, 2013 12:39 am UTC
by Iulus Cofield

Re: Syria Civil War Threatens to Spread

Posted: Mon Sep 02, 2013 10:01 am UTC
by Red Hal
Or to put it another way, "Two separate companies applied for and were granted legitimate licenses for chemicals with legitimate end uses, but new regulations came into effect so we didn't ship them."

It is easy to construct a sinister argument from innocent facts; conspiracy theorists have been doing it for years.

Here, try this for a slice of manufactured paranoia:U.S. exports $256m of soybeans to Syria despite the known use of soybean oil as a precursor to explosives.. Or if you really want to dig up non-existent conspiracies you could point out that soybeans contain both methionine and cystine; sulfur-containing compounds. Sulfur - in the form of Sulfur dichloride - is of course one of the precursors of mustard gas.

Sodium and potassium are present in reasonable quantities in seawater and even fluorine is present at around 1.4 parts per million. Suck up a cubic metre of seawater, get around one and a half grams of fluorine.

Re: Syria Civil War Threatens to Spread

Posted: Mon Sep 02, 2013 2:32 pm UTC
by Tyndmyr
Wnderer wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:It's not as likely to be effective now, though. The US isn't really gung-ho for war in the wake of Iraq and Afghanistan. If anything, they're looking for excuses to not get involved. This is not the turf Obama should be seeking a showdown with congress on.


It is more important for Obama to build a consensus on Syria, both domestically and internationally, than to throw some missiles at Syria. If he attacks Syria and comes out of it unable to perform any further action afterwards because he has made the US and his case unpopular; Syria will be stronger no matter what damage is done on the ground. He needs to take the long view of where we need to be next year, not next week. If he fails to get support this time, he can try again.


Oh, I have no ethical problems with him going to Congress. I just have practical doubts about the ability for Obama and Congress to come to a reasonable agreement now, next week, OR next year.

Re: Syria Civil War Threatens to Spread

Posted: Mon Sep 02, 2013 3:17 pm UTC
by morriswalters
Tyndmyr wrote:Oh, I have no ethical problems with him going to Congress. I just have practical doubts about the ability for Obama and Congress to come to a reasonable agreement now, next week, OR next year.
I agree, and so gridlock does what the politicians don't have courage to do, nothing.

Re: Syria Civil War Threatens to Spread

Posted: Mon Sep 02, 2013 7:54 pm UTC
by sigsfried
Deciding to do nothing and doing nothing because you are incapable of making a decision are two very different things, that will play out very differently on the world stage.

Re: Syria Civil War Threatens to Spread

Posted: Mon Sep 02, 2013 11:12 pm UTC
by Wnderer
This is not partisan gridlock. This kind of votes splits parties. You get leftist 'No War For Oil' pacifists, US foreign policy apologists and right wing isolationists vs democrat international interventionists, and Neo-Con Pax-Americana globalists. There will be no Primary backlash like there is for taxes, immigration, medicare and social security. The US public doesn't care a whole lot if people in the Middle East want to kill each other but they are not going to be all that upset if we shoot a missile into Assad's living room either.

Re: Syria Civil War Threatens to Spread

Posted: Tue Sep 03, 2013 12:14 am UTC
by morriswalters
Speak for yourself. This has already changed me from a Liberal Democrat. I'll watch the vote and vote against my representative in his reelection bid if he votes to intervene. I don't want any ordinance fired in anger from US vessels. If we are to be the enforcers of some world wide morality than we might as well get on with removing those who are in our way. Otherwise let those people who live there, get on with solving their problems. We have shown ourselves to be incapable of doing it twice now.

Re: Syria Civil War Threatens to Spread

Posted: Tue Sep 03, 2013 3:00 am UTC
by addams
morriswalters wrote:Speak for yourself. This has already changed me from a Liberal Democrat. I'll watch the vote and vote against my representative in his reelection bid if he votes to intervene. I don't want any ordinance fired in anger from US vessels. If we are to be the enforcers of some world wide morality than we might as well get on with removing those who are in our way. Otherwise let those people who live there, get on with solving their problems. We have shown ourselves to be incapable of doing it twice now.

I agree.
Working with other Nations to help the people is a reasonable thing to do.

To fire bombs in anger is not a dignified thing to do.
We Americans are not famous for our discretion and thoughtful dignity.
We could act that way, anyway.

Re: Syria Civil War Threatens to Spread

Posted: Tue Sep 03, 2013 3:46 am UTC
by sardia
An all or nothing approach is just as questionable as a measured approach we have now. I suspect your "all or nothing approach" is just a fancy name for isolationism. What events in the past 30 years would trigger an "all in" anyway? Because chemical weapons usage is pretty bad. If you were willing to be dragged into Iraq for fake biological weapons, what's wrong with real chemicals weapons that were just used in Syria?


In addition, any incompetence isn't going to go away when you bury your head into the sand. Executing foreign policy in a "competent" way has nothing to do with whatever goals we have at the moment. People don't get magically smarter if you tell them to switch goals from globalism to isolationism.

Re: Syria Civil War Threatens to Spread

Posted: Tue Sep 03, 2013 5:01 am UTC
by Tyndmyr
Wnderer wrote:This is not partisan gridlock. This kind of votes splits parties. You get leftist 'No War For Oil' pacifists, US foreign policy apologists and right wing isolationists vs democrat international interventionists, and Neo-Con Pax-Americana globalists. There will be no Primary backlash like there is for taxes, immigration, medicare and social security. The US public doesn't care a whole lot if people in the Middle East want to kill each other but they are not going to be all that upset if we shoot a missile into Assad's living room either.


It isn't JUST partisan gridlock, but the partisan gridlock that already exists probably isn't gonna HELP them come to an agreement. Sure, you've got dyed in the wool dems who are gonna dislike this action, but that only increases the difficulty for Obama here. If he's seen as impotent, well...odds are the republicans don't mind that outcome.

I'm actually fairly far towards the end of the isolationist spectrum myself...but a pure, strict "no interventions ever, even if they pose a risk to us" policy is just too far. Iraq? Nah. Coulda sat that one one. And hell, I'm not arguing for boots on ground in Syria even now, because the cost for that would rapidly rise. But the threat posed by WMD proliferation and use is real. I'm not immune to chemicals or whatever just because I'm american. The cost for limited strikes in terms of using cruise missiles and the like is relatively small. It's unlikely to lead to large us body counts. Cost/benefit for this course of action seems decent. Probably better than any other at the moment.

Re: Syria Civil War Threatens to Spread

Posted: Tue Sep 03, 2013 5:13 am UTC
by KnightExemplar
Clearly, the campaign in Syria needs to be even smaller than the Libyan campaign. Despite the fact that we lost an Ambassador there, we did a great job at not dragging it out into a decade-long war. Our job in Libya is mostly done, and no boots ever hit the ground.

If Syria can turn into a similar limited campaign, then I'd be up for it. We're not even trying to overthrow Assad, right? Just send the message that "Chemical Weapons are bad". I think I'm fine with that, as long as it strictly remains a single message.

Re: Syria Civil War Threatens to Spread

Posted: Tue Sep 03, 2013 6:17 am UTC
by BattleMoose
morriswalters wrote:Speak for yourself. This has already changed me from a Liberal Democrat. I'll watch the vote and vote against my representative in his reelection bid if he votes to intervene. I don't want any ordinance fired in anger from US vessels. If we are to be the enforcers of some world wide morality than we might as well get on with removing those who are in our way. Otherwise let those people who live there, get on with solving their problems. We have shown ourselves to be incapable of doing it twice now.


The USA helped in Libya, it was a good thing to do.

The Syrian rebels are trying to overthrow an oppressive regime and earn themselves self-determination and I am sure they would appreciate any kind of help.

Can you think of a time when the people living in the USA needed help to overthrow an oppressive regime, and got it?

Re: Syria Civil War Threatens to Spread

Posted: Tue Sep 03, 2013 7:08 am UTC
by Zamfir
Can you think of a time when the people living in the USA needed help to overthrow an oppressive regime, and got it?

I think the Brits supported Tecumseh?

Re: Syria Civil War Threatens to Spread

Posted: Tue Sep 03, 2013 7:29 am UTC
by BattleMoose
Zamfir wrote:
Can you think of a time when the people living in the USA needed help to overthrow an oppressive regime, and got it?

I think the Brits supported Tecumseh?


Not sure if serious?

I thought it was fairly obvious that I was referring to the American War of Independence.

Re: Syria Civil War Threatens to Spread

Posted: Tue Sep 03, 2013 9:18 am UTC
by Zamfir
That was intended as a serious example. Surely the relation between European settlers and the natives was at least as clear a case of oppression as that between the English crown and the European settlers?

Re: Syria Civil War Threatens to Spread

Posted: Tue Sep 03, 2013 9:38 am UTC
by BattleMoose
Zamfir wrote: Surely the relation between European settlers and the natives was at least as clear a case of oppression as that between the English crown and the European settlers?


Indeed it is. Two cases of oppression no doubt.

I was suggesting though, that the people of the USA got international help in order for them to overthrow their oppressors. That it might be nice if they, now that they are in a position of power to do so, may help another oppressed people find their self determination.

If individual A receives help from individual B, but individual B has no need for any help that individual A could provide, then it is , for lack of a better word, good, for A to provide the same kind of help it got from B, to a third party C. I am taking this concept and instead applying it to nation states.