danivon wrote:

bbauska wrote:Do you think Pelosi and Reid would be supporting Bush II for an attack on Syria if he were President?

I do not.

It is an untestable hypothetical. However, let's look at an analogous situation - how did they vote in 2002 -3 when Bush II went to Congress on attacking Iraq?

Pelosi was against the Iraq war (Iraq War Vote in 2002: 156 Congress Members Who Voted NO),and Reid was for for it (Who voted for it...).

Ignore the politics of those two links, the lists of which Democrats voted for Iraq are from the roll calls.

Again, suggesting that the 'left' is not the homogeneous mass you assume.

And, neither is the right. Those with principles are expressing them (Kucinich, Paul) while others are openly saying they are voting for this because they don't want to "cripple" Obama.

I read one blog today which I thought nailed it. The Congress ought to NOT vote if it's not going to pass. The President is in a tough enough spot (yes, of his own making) and they ought not make it worse. Personally, I'm 100% against us getting involved. I think we will win nothing and accomplish less than nothing. However, if the President is kneecapped internationally, I don't think that is good for any American.

I would vote "No." However, if I was Speaker, I would take a head count and act to not permit a vote if it was going to fail.

The only way I would change my vote is if the President gave an Oval Office speech and made the case to me that this was not about upholding his red line or some vague "will of the international community." I would want to know that there is a "good" side and that we are going to make sure that side wins.

I'm not sure there is a "good" side.

I'm not sure we can bring about a "win" for anyone over there.

I cannot see any national security interest in this conflict.

While I do tend to agree with DF's anlaysis of the situation, I can't help thinking the same could probably have been said about Iraq.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing I guess...

Sassenach wrote:Of all the various aspects we could be discussing here, don't you think this is about the least important ?

"Politician in not always acting entirely consistently shock !"

True, but the President and Kerry have taken every conceivable position--within the last month or two. The problem is not that politicians are inconsistent; it's that when there is wobbliness at the helm, the whole nation doubts. They're trying to take us to war and the people don't want it.

So, Obama, rather than lead and risk his personal prestige, is punting to Congress. If they approve and things go poorly, he can blame them. If things go well, he'll take the credit. It is this lack of any semblance of leadership that has set our foreign policy adrift and created a new form of quagmire in DC.

Sassenach wrote:While I do tend to agree with DF's anlaysis of the situation, I can't help thinking the same could probably have been said about Iraq.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing I guess...

The difference is we had a substantial number of "willing" going with us. And, there was the legal argument that Saddam had invaded Kuwait, agreed to a ceasefire, and then repeatedly violated that.

None of those things exist with Syria. Furthermore, Syria is in a current civil war. Iraq was not. The US was not "war-weary."

So, there are many differences.

bbauska wrote:As for the McCain comment; if it causes so much angst, I will withdraw it. I consider McCain to be wavering in the wind as much as Graham on many issues. Immigration, Debt/deficit and others. They both do not have my admiration when it comes to backbone. I don't trust either one.

I could not agree more.

However, they have been unwavering in their hawkishness. They would fight anyone, anytime, anywhere, and for any reason.

Okay, now THAT is sarcastic, but I can't recall a question of military involvement on some level, whether it be Libya or Iraq, where they were not for it or where they did not want "more" (as they do in Syria).

fate

The difference is we had a substantial number of "willing" going with us. And, there was the legal argument that Saddam had invaded Kuwait, agreed to a ceasefire, and then repeatedly violated that.
None of those things exist with Syria. Furthermore, Syria is in a current civil war. Iraq was not. The US was not "war-weary."
So, there are many differences.

The biggest difference is that the no fly zone was in place find in Iraq, Saddam had no WDMs and Iraq was crawling with inspectors (who couldn't the nonexistent WMDs). The Khurds, were largely protected by the nofly zone ...The rebellious marsh Shia as well....
Saddam was not actively gassing or even bombing innocent civilians anymore.... So there had to be trumped up reasons to invade and occupy.

Today Assad IS gassing and bombing innocent civilians...
As for treaties .... The Syrians signed the Chemical weapons ban....
If it was okay to act when a cease fire is violated, it should be okay to act when the ban on chemical weapons use if violated... (It should be noted that the violations of the cease fire were of suspect authenticity). The use of Sarin by Assad is also suspect if your native tongue is Russian. But only then.

Syria is not Iraq, until the armoured vehicles role into Syria. And they won't
Syria is more like Libya.



.

rickyp wrote:Today Assad IS gassing and bombing innocent civilians...

Well, do you have proof that he's used gas today? Or since the attack two weeks ago? The opposition are also bombing people (including civilians) and there is evidence that they have used chemical weapons as well.

As for treaties .... The Syrians signed the Chemical weapons ban....

Depends what you mean. In 1968 they acceded to the Geneva Conventions protocol which says that poisonous or asphyxiating gases not be used in warfare. However, it's not actually a ban on having them.

But they have not signed up to the Chemical Weapons Convention of 1992 which is a full ban agreed by (at last count) 189 countries. Syria and the following six nations have not ratified or acceded to it: Angola, Myanmar, Egypt, Israel, North Korea, South Sudan.

South Sudan gets a pass having not existed as a country until a few years ago. The others... not so much. However, we can't claim they broke a treaty they never signed.

danivon

Well, do you have proof that he's used gas today? Or since the attack two weeks ago? The opposition are also bombing people (including civilians) and there is evidence that they have used chemical weapons as well.

What is there a two week statute of limitations on punishment for the contravention against chemical weapons?
Assad may not have used gas again, but only because the US is contemplating action... (with France's support). But in a way this is like saying that punishment for crimes is only effective as a deterrent if it happens right after the crime. I don't buy that. Dictators aren't dogs and a cruise missile is not a rolled up newspaper.

Danivon

However, we can't claim they broke a treaty they never signed.

Its the ban on use that was broken.... (The Geneva Convention)

Sassenach wrote:Of all the various aspects we could be discussing here, don't you think this is about the least important ?

"Politician in not always acting entirely consistently shock !"

Probably less important than what people call the UK (or the bizarre argument that typing 'England' is quicker than typing 'Britain' or 'the UK')...

But if people are going to make sweeping assertions on what is a serious subject (the use of chemical weapons and what we do about it), then it is of interest to note if they are based on fact or just plucked out of thin air.

To me, the key is not whether or not Obama is handling it well (he's not doing brilliantly, but then again the circumstances are against him and others are handling it far worse). The key is what should be done.

Now that the UK has apparently ruled out military action (not that Cameron was forced to at all, it was his own choice), perhaps we can look at alternatives. We really should be putting pressure on the ICC to lay charges - it may help persuade the Africans that it's not just about punishing them, for a start.

Probably less important than what people call the UK

Touche..

rickyp wrote:danivon

Well, do you have proof that he's used gas today? Or since the attack two weeks ago? The opposition are also bombing people (including civilians) and there is evidence that they have used chemical weapons as well.

What is there a two week statute of limitations on punishment for the contravention against chemical weapons?

No. But you said 'today'. Let us not let facts become victims to the hyperbole in support of war, eh?

Assad may not have used gas again, but only because the US is contemplating action... (with France's support).

Really? You can read the guy's mind? Maybe he's more worried about internal support folding.

But in a way this is like saying that punishment for crimes is only effective as a deterrent if it happens right after the crime. I don't buy that. Dictators aren't dogs and a cruise missile is not a rolled up newspaper.

I think the real question is whether a cruise missile is the right thing to use for 'punishment'. I agree we don't need to act immediately (which is why some forethought beforehand would not go amiss).

Danivon

However, we can't claim they broke a treaty they never signed.

Its the ban on use that was broken.... (The Geneva Convention)

It's not actually certain that they broke it, as the convention does not necessarily cover civil wars. On the other hand, the UN General Assembly in 1969 voted to include the use of such weapons as Agent Orange as part of the convention. Which would mean that the US broke it over 30 years ago. When does your "statute of limitations run out"? We may need to get the cruise missiles out on your neighbours.

rickyp wrote:fate

The difference is we had a substantial number of "willing" going with us. And, there was the legal argument that Saddam had invaded Kuwait, agreed to a ceasefire, and then repeatedly violated that.
None of those things exist with Syria. Furthermore, Syria is in a current civil war. Iraq was not. The US was not "war-weary."
So, there are many differences.

The biggest difference is that the no fly zone was in place find in Iraq, Saddam had no WDMs and Iraq was crawling with inspectors (who couldn't the nonexistent WMDs). The Khurds, were largely protected by the nofly zone ...The rebellious marsh Shia as well....
Saddam was not actively gassing or even bombing innocent civilians anymore.... So there had to be trumped up reasons to invade and occupy..

Stoogery.

How many UN resolutions did Saddam fail to comply with? How many times did he shoot at allied planes in the no-fly zone? How cooperative was he with UN inspectors?

If it was okay to act when a cease fire is violated, it should be okay to act when the ban on chemical weapons use if violated... (It should be noted that the violations of the cease fire were of suspect authenticity). The use of Sarin by Assad is also suspect if your native tongue is Russian. But only then.

More sophomoric "history."

"If it was okay to act when a ceasefire is violated . . "

A "ceasefire" is predicated upon certain conditions. Saddam's rule was spared after he illegally invaded Kuwait based on his willingness to abide by all of the terms of the ceasefire.

Did he? (hint: if you grant that he EVER violated it, that alone is grounds for the US et al to engage him in war).

Let me help you, since you seem as clueless as Baghdad Bob:

American and British aircraft continuously maintained the integrity of the NFZ, receiving anti-aircraft fire from Iraqi forces almost daily. The operation ran until its conclusion on 1 May 2003. In the south, Operation Southern Watch was underway to watch over the persecuted Shi'ite populations. This operation was launched on 27 August 1992 with the mission of preventing further Human Rights abuses against civilian populations. Iraq challenged the no-fly zone beginning in December 1992 when a USAF F-16 fighter plane shot down an Iraqi MiG-25 Foxbat fighter which had locked on to it in the Southern no-fly zone. The next month Allied planes attacked Iraqi SAM sites in the South.[citation needed] Baghdad eventually halted firing on patrolling Allied aircraft after August 1993.

In the aftermath of Operation Desert Fox in December 1998, Iraq announced it would no longer respect the no-fly zones and resumed its efforts in shooting down Allied aircraft. Saddam Hussein offered a $14,000 reward to anyone who could accomplish this task, but no manned aircraft were ever shot down by Iraq. Air strikes by British and American aircraft against Iraqi claimed anti-aircraft and military targets continued weekly over the next few years. In the early 2000s (decade), the U.S. developed a contingency plan, Operation Desert Badger for dealing with pilots shot down over Iraqi no-fly zones.

Get some fresh air and learn something before your next ridiculous post.

Syria is not Iraq, until the armoured vehicles role into Syria. And they won't
Syria is more like Libya.

You are accidentally correct. We had a lot more rationale to invade Iraq than we do Syria. And, I was against that invasion anyway.

In Libya, we should have learned one lesson: getting rid of a dictator who poses no threat to us is not wise when we have no idea who will take his place.

Doctor Fate wrote:In Libya, we should have learned one lesson: getting rid of a dictator who poses no threat to us is not wise when we have no idea who will take his place.

Ok, so Benghazi, right? But in reality the people who attacked the Embassy are rebels against the current government. Which is why they were being violent.

The Prime Minster is this guy - Ali Zeidan - a "strong-minded liberal" (in the context of the Middle East, a 'liberal' means they support civil democracy).

Gaddafi may not have been a direct threat, but it's not like he hasn't had form in the past either.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:In Libya, we should have learned one lesson: getting rid of a dictator who poses no threat to us is not wise when we have no idea who will take his place.

Ok, so Benghazi, right? But in reality the people who attacked the Embassy are rebels against the current government. Which is why they were being violent.

The Prime Minster is this guy - Ali Zeidan - a "strong-minded liberal" (in the context of the Middle East, a 'liberal' means they support civil democracy).

Gaddafi may not have been a direct threat, but it's not like he hasn't had form in the past either.

No, no direct reference to Benghazi. As you often say, don't try to read my mind. What we have in Libya is a mess. I have nothing against Zeidan. I'm not the one who called him a liar on national TV.

danivon

Gaddafi may not have been a direct threat

At the time of the decision to intercede his forces were threatening the democide of lightly armed opponents. Thats the threat the intervention was responding to ...not the threat represented by Ghaddaffi to the West. It was very much a humanitarian intervention.
A very direct comparison to Assad and his use of gas against defenceless civilians.

On the other hand, the no fly zone in Iraq was being maintained militarily - protecting the Khurds and Shia who had been the victims of democide by Saddam.

If you want to compare the military actions taken to maintain the effectiveness of the no fly zone, and Fates quotations clearly demonstrate that it was working very well, and with the bombing in Libyaand the planned intervention in Syria ...then we are on parallel terms.
Iraq was an unnecessary iinvasion that was justified on trumped up rationale. (The violations of the no fly zone resulted in only downed Iraquis pilots or destroyed anti aircraft sites...)
On the other hand the no fly zone achieved essentially what the Libyan intervention initially sought to do, save the opponents from utter destruction .
And thats narrowly close to the objectives of the Syrian proposal. If, Assad collapses as quickly as Ghaddaffi in the face of a few cruise missiles, perhaps there is more opportunity ...However, that won't be known till the missiles hit, same as in Libya.
That Libya is a "mess" might be true. But, it is a "mess" on its way to evolving into a modern democracy. And in their infancy democracies sometimes appear chaotic.
Indeed modern democracies can sometimes appear that way ....