Doctor Fate wrote:Again, my apologies. It is obvious that Libya is a stable, flourishing democracy. By all means, we should do the same thing in Syria. It worked perfectly. So far, the more we get involved in Arab politics, the more brilliant the result.

Two things:

1) Of course Libya is not stable or fully democratic. It is vastly more democratic than it was under Gadaffy, and far more stable than it was during the civil war, so the current situation is an improvement on the pre-intervention Libya.

Between perfection and calamity there is a lot of ground. Libya is neither, oddly enough. Please try not to exclude the middle all the time

2) I was against military intervention in Libya, and I am against military intervention in Syria. I just don't think it helps to exaggerate the argument against using flawed data.

fate

I never said anything else. I was against the invasion of Iraq. I focused on the legal justification because there is no doubt about that. Saddam invaded Kuwait. Saddam agreed to a ceasefire. Saddam violated the ceasefire repeatedly.

The no fly zone was "challenged" by Iraquis incursions almost since the date of its establishment. Those "violation" occurred constantly for 10 years, and were actually diminishing in frequency greatly by the time the US and Britain decided that they were justiifcation for invasion.
The question is, if they justified invasion in 2003 - why not earlier?
The answer is expediency. They became one more justification after the political decision was made to invade. Ignored till needed.... Clinging to them know as a key justification , when they weren't important for the ten years preceding the decision to invade deliberately ignores they were cyncially used at the time.
Especially when you castigate Obama for not doing something earlier in Syria ....and only acting after repeated usesof gassing..

fate

The US has no such justification in Syria.

Intervention for humanitarian reasons is justifcation. And in fact more justifiable than for political reasons. That is reasons of advancing national interest.

fate

The only compelling "national interest" case for invading Iraq was that removing Saddam permanently removed a threat to Kuwait. However, it also altered the balance of power in the region so that Iran is really unrivaled

I wish I could go back to the old discussion board where you repeatedly denied that Iran was gaining from Iraq and called everyone who pointed out the obvious to you idiots ...

You represent the kind of schizophrenia that Americas repeatedly demonstrate since Iraq.
On the one hand, Obama ( is responsible for every perceived failure of other nations - particualrly in the Middle East - to act in away that favours US interests... As if the US, through some magical use of persuasion could make Egyptians, Libyans, or whoever become acolytes of the American way, just through pronouncements...
Then, when forced to actually use force to achieve some goal, the need to avoid any casualties or costs, turns you into an isolationist .
here's a clue. Isolationism means that there is no influence on foreign nations. So yoiu can't complain if they aren't acting in American interests...
I put this down to your Obama derangement sydrome, since you'll fold yourself into any geometric formation in order to take a position contrary to him...
You're not alone. A lot of republican politicians are now diametrically oppossed to their public pronouncements of 3 months ago.
But you present your schizophrenia here.
Fate.

I have always argued that President Obama's foreign policy was weak for this very reason. Nature abhors a vacuum and so does the world's political scene. When we step back, someone else will push forward. It's inevitable

So he's at fault for not reacting in a way that fills the "vacuum".
But when he does act he's over reaching?

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:Again, my apologies. It is obvious that Libya is a stable, flourishing democracy. By all means, we should do the same thing in Syria. It worked perfectly. So far, the more we get involved in Arab politics, the more brilliant the result.

Two things:

1) Of course Libya is not stable or fully democratic. It is vastly more democratic than it was under Gadaffy, and far more stable than it was during the civil war, so the current situation is an improvement on the pre-intervention Libya.

Between perfection and calamity there is a lot of ground. Libya is neither, oddly enough. Please try not to exclude the middle all the time

2) I was against military intervention in Libya, and I am against military intervention in Syria. I just don't think it helps to exaggerate the argument against using flawed data.

And, all I'm suggesting is that we don't yet know the outcome in Libya. It's not "over" until the terrorists pose no significant threat to the government. I don't know that we know that yet--just as in Egypt. The problem is that our "friends" in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States have been more than willing to bankroll extremism.

I am suggesting that we need a strategy. Responding to each crisis as an individual incident is what is driving the chaos in the Middle East. We need a coherent policy.

fate

And, all I'm suggesting is that we don't yet know the outcome in Libya

we know that Ghaddaffi, who had his forces lined up out side Ben Ghazzi and was about to begin a democide.... was stopped from this. Goal achieved,
and we know that he subsequently Ghaddaffi was driven from power with the intervention of allied air power . Goal achieved.
That we don't know how Libyans decide to run their government is also because one of the goals was self determination. Democracy ideally.
You can't complain that Libyans are determining their own future just because they aren't determining that it should meet your description of a good out come.
Isolationists are nothing more than placid observors with no influence. With that philosophy how can Obama be faulted ever for what happens in a foreign land if its because he didn't do enough? And yet you and others repeatedly point to "foreign policy disasters" caused by inaction or faulty foreign relations... You can't have both.

The US can't always act as the Worlds policeman. However. it does have the means to act....
If seeking to protect innocent civilians from the ravages of chemical war fare isn't a sufficient reason to step in ..... then the US (and its western allies) have sunk to the morailty of Russia nd China.
It was a sufficeint reason to act in Libya. The outcome was success in the terms originally defined.
There should be similar reasons and goals with Syria.

rickyp wrote:fate

I never said anything else. I was against the invasion of Iraq. I focused on the legal justification because there is no doubt about that. Saddam invaded Kuwait. Saddam agreed to a ceasefire. Saddam violated the ceasefire repeatedly.

The no fly zone was "challenged" by Iraquis incursions almost since the date of its establishment. Those "violation" occurred constantly for 10 years, and were actually diminishing in frequency greatly by the time the US and Britain decided that they were justiifcation for invasion.
The question is, if they justified invasion in 2003 - why not earlier?
The answer is expediency.

That is your answer. That may work in your living room, but it doesn't pass muster elsewhere.

Especially when you castigate Obama for not doing something earlier in Syria ....and only acting after repeated usesof gassing..

Actually, no. McCain castigated him.

I want no intervention there, under any circumstances. I care about the deaths. However, it is not "America's job" to decide when "red lines" have been crossed that have nothing to do with us. Based on Obama's argumentation, as I've said, there really is no reason not to have intervened in many civil wars.

fate

The US has no such justification in Syria.

Intervention for humanitarian reasons is justifcation. And in fact more justifiable than for political reasons. That is reasons of advancing national interest.

"Humanitarian reasons" does not equal "advancing national interest" just because you said so.

Again, it might sound brilliant at your breakfast table. But, that doesn't carry any weight.

How is the US better off by enforcing "humanitarian reasons?" How about applying that globally? How many military interventions per month should we do?

fate

The only compelling "national interest" case for invading Iraq was that removing Saddam permanently removed a threat to Kuwait. However, it also altered the balance of power in the region so that Iran is really unrivaled

I wish I could go back to the old discussion board where you repeatedly denied that Iran was gaining from Iraq and called everyone who pointed out the obvious to you idiots ...

Even if true, so what? I was against the invasion, you idiot.

You represent the kind of schizophrenia that Americas repeatedly demonstrate since Iraq.

Funny. See, I am consistently against intervention. If you think that is "schizophrenic," then you're the one with the issues. I was against the US intervening in Iraq, Egypt, Libya, and now Syria. I think that's fairly consistent. If you don't think so, please consult a dictionary.

On the one hand, Obama ( is responsible for every perceived failure of other nations - particualrly in the Middle East - to act in away that favours US interests... As if the US, through some magical use of persuasion could make Egyptians, Libyans, or whoever become acolytes of the American way, just through pronouncements...

You have missed the point. Of course.

He is the one who said he was going to change things. He traveled to Cairo in 2009 and offered a "new beginning." He praised Islam. He even lied when he said, "Islam has always been a part of America's story."

Subsequent to that speech, has our position in the Middle East improved or worsened?

Then, when forced to actually use force to achieve some goal, the need to avoid any casualties or costs, turns you into an isolationist .

I'm never keen on the use of force unless it is necessary to further American interests or defend them. I don't believe we are the World's Beat Cop.

here's a clue. Isolationism means that there is no influence on foreign nations. So yoiu can't complain if they aren't acting in American interests...

I'm not a complete isolationist. I don't happen to think the UN has much value. I don't believe we should be engaged in giving money to nations that foster terrorism. Other than that, I think we can and should be engaged.

I put this down to your Obama derangement sydrome, since you'll fold yourself into any geometric formation in order to take a position contrary to him...

Hey, you know what? I'll grant you that . . . IF you can do one little thing: explain what Obama's strategy is and how he intends to bring it about. Good luck--since he himself can do neither one.

I'm against his foreign policy because he doesn't have one. He thought being nice was a policy. It's not.

You're not alone. A lot of republican politicians are now diametrically oppossed to their public pronouncements of 3 months ago.

Stop blaming the Republicans. Many Democrats are against him on Syria too. It's because he's been absolutely incoherent. There's a different narrative every 24-48 hours. In fact, the Democrats who are supporting him are doing so mostly out of party loyalty.

Please, other Redscape liberals, please help rickyp out! If you can explain the goals in Syria and the means by which we will accomplish them, feel free!

But you present your schizophrenia here.

And you demonstrate your utter vacuity here. I have repeatedly asked that someone explain the rationale of a strike--what it will accomplish and how it will benefit us. No one can do that. The President knows he has not done that, so he's scheduled a speech for Tuesday night to take one last swing. Good luck, Mr. President!

Fate.

I have always argued that President Obama's foreign policy was weak for this very reason. Nature abhors a vacuum and so does the world's political scene. When we step back, someone else will push forward. It's inevitable

So he's at fault for not reacting in a way that fills the "vacuum".
But when he does act he's over reaching?

He's not filling a vacuum. No one was intervening in Syria. No one will.

He should not have drawn the red line, which he now denies drawing.

rickyp wrote:You can't complain that Libyans are determining their own future just because they aren't determining that it should meet your description of a good out come.

Actually, I said, "We don't know."

I didn't describe a "good out come (sic)."

It may turn into a Jeffersonian democracy. It may go back to a dictatorship. It may become a failed state. It may become an Islamic state. You don't know and neither do I.

What history suggests is that we rarely get what we expect when we topple dictators. I'm suggesting it is dangerous and expensive for us to trot around the world removing people we don't like.

Isolationists are nothing more than placid observors with no influence. With that philosophy how can Obama be faulted ever for what happens in a foreign land if its because he didn't do enough? And yet you and others repeatedly point to "foreign policy disasters" caused by inaction or faulty foreign relations... You can't have both.

Irrational rant, poorly written, proving nothing. I'm going to have to create a macro and use this for all your posts.

The US can't always act as the Worlds policeman. However. it does have the means to act....
If seeking to protect innocent civilians from the ravages of chemical war fare isn't a sufficient reason to step in ..... then the US (and its western allies) have sunk to the morailty of Russia nd China.

Irrational rant, poorly written, proving nothing.

Please prove that Russia and China supply no "bad guys" with weapons and use their UNSC votes to uphold democracy and international norms. When you can, you'll be right. Until then . . . Irrational rant, poorly written, proving nothing.

It was a sufficeint reason to act in Libya. The outcome was success in the terms originally defined.
There should be similar reasons and goals with Syria.

Irrational rant, poorly written, proving nothing.

Thanks, and have a great day, eh?

I like the compromise that is being worked out: Syria's chemical weapons are transferred to an international body and destroyed.

From a U.S. perspective it solves 2 out of the 3 reasons for attacking: (1) they won't use chemical weapons again and (2) Obama can say he kept to his redline. It would also be cool if Congress authorized force if Assad does not come to an acceptable agreement. It probably will be too hard to get to this agreement, but it does seem like a better answer for both the U.S. and Syria.

Ray Jay wrote:I like the compromise that is being worked out: Syria's chemical weapons are transferred to an international body and destroyed.

From a U.S. perspective it solves 2 out of the 3 reasons for attacking: (1) they won't use chemical weapons again and (2) Obama can say he kept to his redline. It would also be cool if Congress authorized force if Assad does not come to an acceptable agreement. It probably will be too hard to get to this agreement, but it does seem like a better answer for both the U.S. and Syria.

Yeah, well, isn't it a "compromise" accidentally engineered by that great Secretary of State, who wrongly said something that was not policy. Putin turned it into a potential way out. Why? Because all dictators know that agreements take time to hammer out and are difficult to enforce (see Saddam Hussein).

Meanwhile, Samantha Power:

The NPR host asked, "Let me ask a central question for you, because you're representing the U.S. at the United Nations, which has not authorized a strike. Would an American strike on Syria be legal?"

"If we take military action in this context, it will be a legitimate, necessary, and proportionate response to this large scale and indiscriminate use of chemical weapons by the regime," said Power. "Nobody has tried harder than this administration to work through the security council over two and a half years. As you're well aware of, of course, even modest humanitarian and political measures have been rejected by Russia in New York. We've had three vetoes put forward--three resolutions put forward, all of which have been vetoed by Russia. And on chemical weapons, specifically, and perhaps most heart breakingly, even on the day of August 21, when those ghastly images were broadcast all around the world, we couldn't even get a press release out of the security council condemning generically use of chemical weapons."

The NPR host pressed, "So let me make sure that I'm clear on this: You're saying that something needs to be done and it is time to go outside the legal system, outside the legal framework. You believe it is right to do something that is just simply not legal."

"In the cases of--we've seen in the past--there are times when there is a patron like Syria backed by Russia, we saw this in Kosovo as well, where it was just structurally impossible to get meaningful international action through the security council, and yet in this case you have the grave breach of such a critical international norm in terms of the ban on chemical weapons use, it is very important that the international community act so as to prevent further use," said Power.

Law? What law? We're the Obama Administration!

Ray Jay wrote:I like the compromise that is being worked out: Syria's chemical weapons are transferred to an international body and destroyed.

From a U.S. perspective it solves 2 out of the 3 reasons for attacking: (1) they won't use chemical weapons again and (2) Obama can say he kept to his redline. It would also be cool if Congress authorized force if Assad does not come to an acceptable agreement. It probably will be too hard to get to this agreement, but it does seem like a better answer for both the U.S. and Syria.

So a good job we didn't launch a strike in the last couple of weeks, then?

Doctor Fate wrote:Law? What law? We're the Obama Administration!

I didn't know you were a fan of international law.

danivon wrote:

Ray Jay wrote:I like the compromise that is being worked out: Syria's chemical weapons are transferred to an international body and destroyed.

From a U.S. perspective it solves 2 out of the 3 reasons for attacking: (1) they won't use chemical weapons again and (2) Obama can say he kept to his redline. It would also be cool if Congress authorized force if Assad does not come to an acceptable agreement. It probably will be too hard to get to this agreement, but it does seem like a better answer for both the U.S. and Syria.

So a good job we didn't launch a strike in the last couple of weeks, then?

I'm not sure what you mean by "we", but I'm willing to keep an open mind. I do think going to Congress is a mistake, mostly because of my perception on how Iran and Israel perceive it. There's also a very good chance that Congress says no. But let's see what develops. If Obama saves face and Syria gets rid of chemical weapons, that sounds like a short term win/win to me. What this means long term for Syria's future (more civilian deaths from conventional weapons?) and mid-term in Iran's march towards nuclear capabilities is hard to say.

Rickyp said:

If seeking to protect innocent civilians from the ravages of chemical war fare isn't a sufficient reason to step in ..... then the US (and its western allies) have sunk to the morality of Russia and China.

Isn't it a little late for that Rickyp?

Curious. Didn't the United States use white phosphorus in the battle of Fellujah? Please don't bother to split hairs over whether it wasn't technically speaking, a chemical weapon. There seems to be a fine line between chemical weapons that bring about a gruesome death and acceptable weapons that bring about a gruesome death.

Further, didn't we stand by and do nothing in 1988 when Saddam gassed the Kurds in the north as well as the Iranians?

If memory serves on these two points Ricky you might reconsider painting the US as some kind of moral superior.

In the first scenario we denied using the white phosphorus. Only later did it become known that we lied...hauntingly familiar. Perhaps Assad took a page out of our playbook?

I said earlier let the French lead if punishment is to be doled out. We lose no matter what we do. So for me, in addition to being a moral dilemma, Syria presents an economical dilemma. If we're damned if we do and damned if we don't, shouldn't we at least bank the 20 billion (low estimate) it's going to take to get involved? Let's at least not win and keep the money.

The truth is I have a problem killing people in order to send a message that killing people is wrong.
Be that as it may, lets at least be honest about the recent US role in utilizing or allowing the use of chemical weapons to advance our own foreign policy.

and why did nobody help in Rwanda, Darfur, DRC, Cambodia, etc
why Syria?
why Iraq was bad but Syria and Libya were good?
Oh, could it be simply partisan politics and Obama can do no wrong?

Ray Jay wrote:
I'm not sure what you mean by "we", but I'm willing to keep an open mind. I do think going to Congress is a mistake, mostly because of my perception on how Iran and Israel perceive it. There's also a very good chance that Congress says no. But let's see what develops. If Obama saves face and Syria gets rid of chemical weapons, that sounds like a short term win/win to me. What this means long term for Syria's future (more civilian deaths from conventional weapons?) and mid-term in Iran's march towards nuclear capabilities is hard to say.

By 'we' I meant the US and UK and France. The UK was only a handful of parliamentarians away from authorising military force. Had that happened, I suspect that things would have moved quickly and without waiting for Congress.

dag

Isn't it a little late for that Rickyp?
Curious. Didn't the United States use white phosphorus in the battle of Fellujah? Please don't bother to split hairs over whether it wasn't technically speaking, a chemical weapon. There seems to be a fine line between chemical weapons that bring about a gruesome death and acceptable weapons that bring about a gruesome death.
Further, didn't we stand by and do nothing in 1988 when Saddam gassed the Kurds in the north as well as the Iranians?

tom

and why did nobody help in Rwanda, Darfur, DRC, Cambodia, etc
why Syria?
why Iraq was bad but Syria and Libya were good?
Oh, could it be simply partisan politics and Obama can do no wrong?

Your arguements amount to excusing future inaction because of past inaction. Future crimes are excused by past crimes ....
Do past mistakes condemn one to the same mistakes going forward or is every challenge and every choice a new choice? A new circumstance to be found either willing or wanting...
Do you only get one chance to do the right thing, and if you fail then is redemption impossible?

After every atrocity, after every crime against humanity, those who stood by and did nothing have proclaimed "Never again." It would be nice if this time they meant it....

Interventions in Kosovo and Libya by similar means to that considered in Syria succeeded in avoiding democides. I prefer to look at these instances, when the cry "Never Again" meant something .... than to recall instances when the moral stand was not taken ...and we stood by and watched ....

Although Kerry may have stumbled upon a potential solution that avoids conflict, can anyone doubt that the threat of bombing has prompted the Syrians to be receptive?