Is the US Red Line in Syria Just Empty Rhetoric?

[jim hardy]

wellll, that's one way to look at it.
But what if your white corpuscles take up that mindset ?

War and courage have done more great things than charity. Not your sympathy, but your bravery has saved the unfotunate. nietzsche

 

[phoenix:\\]

My white blood cells do not destroy parts of my body to help me stay safe.

As for the quote, Nietzche... I never found his views appealing or remotely wise. But I guess he believed in (in my opinion) of wisdom reaching not from current man but developing anew through destruction of old, conservative views of wisdom (parable of a madman). Given that, I guess he found his enlightenment although still... nothing that set him entirely apart from being just another shock-jock of the 19 century. I'd stick with Fuerbach or Kierkegaard (excluding the god stuff if that is not your type of thing); at least they have wise words to impart on a newer generation, and not societal destruction for restoration! I don't know about you but that sounds like a new-age cult's ideology to me.

"He who joyfully marches to the rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him, the spinal cord would suffice." ~ Albert Einstein

 

[russ_watters]

I'll come back to the other points later, but:

War in and of itself is wrong...

This and other similar pacifist platitudes (war is not the answer, wars never solve anything) are just plain nonsense/wrong -- even meaningless ("wrong" in your statement is a value judgement, but there are logical/factual flaws in the application). If one side wants a war, the other side had best show up and fight because the alternative is to be overrun. And once they overrun you, your enemy will be quite happy to listen to diplomacy and acquire peace: because they've already won the war! History is littered with examples of this. From WWII Europe to Iraq/Kuwait 1990. Both are also examples of wars partially caused by diplomacy (appeasement).

In this case, the war already exists, so the question of war being "wrong" is irrelevant. It is here. Choosing not to have it isn't an option for us: Telling the Syrians it is wrong is not going to make them stop (people have been telling them for 2.5 years). We could of course choose not to join, but the reality is that what ends wars is usually decisive victory, not diplomacy. Just ask the Koreans, who are technically still at war. Or Iraq. Or Germany. Or Japan. Or England circa 1815.

 

[phoenix:\\]

You have mistaken me to be a pacifistic. There are times when war is necessary, however, that doesn't make war a moral right, it is still wrong but can be seen as a necessary course of action (depending on the circumstances and thought). War can never be a good thing because of its very nature. Saying, "well, it being wrong is irrelevant," misses the point. War is never good which is what we all should recognize and by people seeing it as a wrong and not a right, different methods can be developed to deal with other governments hell-bent on war.

My gripe within that post is knowing that war is wrong and that the use of chemical weapons is a direct result of war, the use of chemical weapons in a depraved act, is never wrong if a war has erupted. There is something wrong with the very logic people are using today calling the use of chemical weapons an immoral action as there can never be a morally right action in the midst of war between warring nations. In other words, once you cross that line, any use of weaponry, and use of tactics, are allowed because both parties have forgone their reason.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

I don't support military intervention by the west. At the very least there needs to be more time to let UN inspectors to do their work and return with solid data. What I would support though is immediate delivery of medical supplies, particularly Nerve Agent Antidote Kits, to as many people as possible in areas of conflict.

 

[nsaspook]

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_UNITED_STATES_SYRIA_INTELLIGENCE_DOUBTS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2013-08-29-03-11-56

Intelligence officials say they could not pinpoint the exact locations of Assad's supplies of chemical weapons, and Assad could have moved them in recent days as the U.S. rhetoric increased. But.that lack of certainty means a possible series of U.S. cruise missile strikes aimed at crippling Assad's military infrastructure could hit newly hidden supplies of chemical weapons, accidentally triggering a deadly chemical attack.

I think we need to step back and be damn sure before any action as Assad could easily rig an incident that could be blamed on us.

 

[fargoth]

Since Obama said last year chemical weapons are a red line - the US has to do something.
The implications of not doing anything after threatening are very bad in the long run, since Syria as well as other renegade regimes might take it as a sign that they can do these things and get away with it.
Syria has used chemical weapons before, and the US did nothing - so they continued to use them, upping the ante every time.
Had Obama remained silent regarding chemical weapons in the first place, the US would have been better off staying out of this conflict.

There are enough places to do good for humankind where the resources of this intervention could have been tunneled to - so the moral argument is moot.

 

[jim hardy]

Since Obama said last year chemical weapons are a red line - the US has to do something.

He could admit the mistake.

 

[jim hardy]

Who's the liar?


http://syrianfreepress.wordpress.co...nufactured-chemical-weapons-outside-damascus/

On the 21st of August 2013 several western and Arab TV channels reported that chemical agents had been used in the Damascus suburbs of Ain Tarma, Zamalka and Jobar. According to the media, between 20 and 625 people died as a result of an attack with the use of shells containing the sarin nerve gas.

Representatives of the opposition claim that it was the Syrian army that used chemical weapons. A spokesman for the Syrian government has announced that this statement is a far cry from reality and is aimed at disrupting the UN experts’ work.

Russia has announced that, according to its information, on the 21st of August chemical agents were used in the suburbs of Damascus by the opposition units and not by President Bashar al-Assad’s army. Accusations against the government troops are based on unverified information.

On the 21st of August the UN Security Council held an extraordinary meeting and called for a thorough investigation of the reports about the tragedy in the suburbs of Damascus. Russia shares the view that a comprehensive investigation is indispensable. It can be carried out by the UN experts already stationed in Syria.

 

[fargoth]

He could admit the mistake.

Well, that wouldn't help much, since he would still have to hold true to his word...
If he would just say, "uhm, I re-examined our priorities... chemical weapons are just dandy as far as we're concerned" - then he would signal all other renegade countries that it's alright to do whatever they want, even if the US warns them - just as long as they don't directly harm US's interests.

The US should reserve it's warnings only to the cases in which it is willing to act on them - empty warnings are worse than none (see what it did the UN's power)

 

[OmCheeto]

...
The US should reserve it's warnings only to the cases in which it is willing to act on them - empty warnings are worse than none (see what it did the UN's power)

I have the opposite opinion.

I'd take a healthy dose of sabre-rattling over sabre-wielding any day.

As long as the rattling has an effect, of course. Perhaps they should play re-runs of "Shock and Awe" for Assad, on Syrian TV.

Anyone remember that?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NktsxucDvNI​

According to my googling, the sun set in Damascus about 1.5 hours ago.

Perhaps they should remind Assad that Obama didn't stop the drone strikes when he was first elected.

hmmmm... Obama's nearly a half hour late?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/live/president-obama-speaks-syria

Maybe Barry's on the phone with Bashy, trying to work things out. That would be nice. I'm not in the mood for any more shock and awe.

 

[nsaspook]

Well, that wouldn't help much, since he would still have to hold true to his word...
If he would just say, "uhm, I re-examined our priorities... chemical weapons are just dandy as far as we're concerned" - then he would signal all other renegade countries that it's alright to do whatever they want, even if the US warns them - just as long as they don't directly harm US's interests.

The US should reserve it's warnings only to the cases in which it is willing to act on them - empty warnings are worse than none (see what it did the UN's power)

We've spent a week telling Assad these attacks are only a message, What are his possible 'positive' responses to that message? Will he say:

1. I'm sorry and swear to never do it again and continues the killings with other weapons.
2. Says nothing and continues the killings with other weapons.
3. Says we never used chemical weapons anyway and continues the killings with other weapons.

Warning, other weapons:

Ian Pannell and cameraman Darren Conway's report contains images viewers may find extremely distressing.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-23892594

The more likely 'negative' response only draws us closer into another war that we can't or don't want to win and nothing positive for the innocent people in Syria.

 

[OmCheeto]

Nice piece of sabre-rattling by John Kerry in The New Yorker.

JOHN KERRY’S CASE FOR BOMBING SYRIA
AUGUST 30, 2013
...

Both Obama and Kerry acknowledged the war-weariness of the American public and the widespread skepticism about any military action post-Iraq. But doing nothing in response to the gas attack would send the wrong message to potential aggressors, the President said, and that would constitute “a danger to our national security.” This, though, was Kerry’s moment. From anti-war protestor to public defender of a prospective U.S. bombing raid, he has come a long way. History would, he said, “judge us all extraordinarily harshly if we turned a blind eye to a dictator’s wanton use of weapons of mass destruction.”

Oh! The President is speaking. Ciao!

 

[nsaspook]

Oh! The President is speaking. Ciao!

I just don't see the President attacking Syria if Congress says no. The President has kicked the can down the street and has lost his power of personal sabre-rattling.

 

[OmCheeto]

I just don't see the President attacking Syria if Congress says no.

Agreed. I don't think he will attack Syria if congress doesn't approve it. I would say more about the decision^[1] congress is about to make, but I'd be way off topic.

The President has kicked the can down the street and has lost his power of personal sabre-rattling.

hmmm... Who was the last president to wage un-authorized air strikes against another country, without congress's approval?

Was that Nixon?

hmmm...

Barry doesn't strike me as being a Dick^[2]...

------------------------
[1]fools...
[2]For our compatriots who do not speak American as a first language, "Dick" is short for "Richard", as in, Richard "Tricky Dick" Milhous^[3] Nixon".
[3]Why is it that people always accentuate the middle name when trying to insult people?

 

[fargoth]

I have the opposite opinion.

I'd take a healthy dose of sabre-rattling over sabre-wielding any day.

As long as the rattling has an effect, of course.

So, if the sabre-rattling has not effect (as in this instance) - if you don't put your money where your mouth is, you'd lose all your sabre-rattling abilities.

 

[fargoth]

We've spent a week telling Assad these attacks are only a message, What are his possible 'positive' responses to that message? Will he say:

1. I'm sorry and swear to never do it again and continues the killings with other weapons.
2. Says nothing and continues the killings with other weapons.
3. Says we never used chemical weapons anyway and continues the killings with other weapons.

Warning, other weapons:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-23892594

The more likely 'negative' response only draws us closer into another war that we can't or don't want to win and nothing positive for the innocent people in Syria.

The action against Syria would not help these people.
But failing to act would jeopardise other innocent people all over the world.
The US is already taken only half seriously by the world's bullies (thanks to north korea)
What would Iran learn from the actions of the US if it fails to follow it's threats?
Why do you think no country gives a damn about UN resolutions, as long as they don't come from the security council?

 

[OmCheeto]

So, if the sabre-rattling has not effect (as in this instance) - if you don't put your money where your mouth is, you'd lose all your sabre-rattling abilities.

I think that's what spooky just said. Unfortunately, we don't live in a dictatorship, and Barry's hands are tied.

btw, has anyone checked out the targets yet?

I wonder what Rommel could have done with google Earth at his disposal.

hmmm...

...
Rommel is regarded as having been a humane and professional officer. His Afrika Korps was never accused of war crimes, and soldiers captured during his Africa campaign were reported to have been treated humanely. Orders to kill Jewish soldiers, civilians and captured commandos were ignored.
...

 

[fargoth]

We've spent a week telling Assad these attacks are only a message, What are his possible 'positive' responses to that message? Will he say:

1. I'm sorry and swear to never do it again and continues the killings with other weapons.
2. Says nothing and continues the killings with other weapons.
3. Says we never used chemical weapons anyway and continues the killings with other weapons.

Warning, other weapons:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-23892594

The more likely 'negative' response only draws us closer into another war that we can't or don't want to win and nothing positive for the innocent people in Syria.

I guess you mean to say the US should do more than just sending a message.
I would disagree - if the US would topple Assad's regime, it would only change the victims from Sunnis to Alawites.
And would most probably push Syria into a taliban-like regime.

 

[amonraa]

Here's why not everyone is convinced and some stepped back and others decided not to involve in dragging the region to hell.

http://www.mintpressnews.com/witnes...supplied-rebels-with-chemical-weapons/168135/

And regardless who did it, targeting the regime would be like committing suicide to the whole region or put in other words, handing in the region to Al Qaeda affiliated groups and other Jihadists who will first thing do is hit Israel.

 

[fargoth]

Here's why not everyone is convinced and some stepped back and others decided not to involve in dragging the region to hell.

http://www.mintpressnews.com/witnes...supplied-rebels-with-chemical-weapons/168135/

And regardless who did it, targeting the regime would be like committing suicide to the whole region or put in other words, handing in the region to Al Qaeda affiliated groups and other Jihadists who will first thing do is hit Israel.

If the story you have posted would turn out to be true, it would make an outside attack unnecessary.
But if Assad is to blame, there are only talks about sending a message, and not getting really involved in a way which would shift the balance of powers.

 

[nsaspook]

The action against Syria would not help these people.
But failing to act would jeopardise other innocent people all over the world.
The US is already taken only half seriously by the world's bullies (thanks to north korea)
What would Iran learn from the actions of the US if it fails to follow it's threats?
Why do you think no country gives a damn about UN resolutions, as long as they don't come from the security council?

Out of all the things happening in the world that needs to be fixed, Syria as a gateway to mass destruction worldwide is pretty low on my list.

 

[fargoth]

Out of all the things happening in the world that needs to be fixed, Syria as a gateway to mass destruction worldwide is pretty low on my list.

Just out of curiosity, could you share that list?

 

[nsaspook]

I guess you mean to say the US should do more than just sending a message.
I would disagree - if the US would topple Assad's regime, it would only change the victims from Sunnis to Alawites.
And would most probably push Syria into a taliban-like regime.

I don't think we should do anything. The Assad regime is about as good as it can get in Syria today.

 

[fargoth]

I don't think we should do anything. The Assad regime is about as good as it can get in Syria today.

I partly agree, there is no need to shift the balance of power - and no one is planning to do that.

But we disagree on the necessity of preserving the deterrence powers of the US's threats in this part of the world.

 

[jim hardy]

(in response to "He could admit the mistake." )

"Well, that wouldn't help much, since he would still have to hold true to his word...

Why ?
Anybody can make a mistake but it takes a fool to defend one.

If he would just say, "uhm, I re-examined our priorities... chemical weapons are just dandy as far as we're concerned" - then he would signal all other renegade countries that it's alright to do whatever they want, even if the US warns them - just as long as they don't directly harm US's interests.

That's indeed how geopolitics works, isn't it ?
Forcibly imposing our standards on the world is vigilantism.

The US should reserve it's warnings only to the cases in which it is willing to act on them - empty warnings are worse than none (see what it did the UN's power)

That one I agree with. As Flip Wilson's character Geraldine used to say: "Don't let your mouth write a check your body can't cash".

I can preach to my neighbor that he shouldn't sin
but I can rightfully shoot at him only in self defense.

 

[nsaspook]

Just out of curiosity, could you share that list?

Here's a few http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/12/27/10_conflicts_to_watch_in_2013

 

[OmCheeto]

I was going to request that my first post in this thread be deleted, as I really don't have a clue what is going on over there.

But...

​

It seems I'm not alone.

And they are there.

So much for my theory of "Being on the Front Line of reality" theory...

 

[nsaspook]

But we disagree on the necessity of preserving the deterrence powers of the US's threats in this part of the world.

That's my problems with 'threats', it works until someone like Assad calls your bluff. Ok, we want to make a example of Assad but he's just the wrong person to kick in the shin as he has nothing to lose by kicking us in the groin.

 

[fargoth]

Why ?
Anybody can make a mistake but it takes a fool to defend one.

The US should reserve it's warnings only to the cases in which it is willing to act on them - empty warnings are worse than none (see what it did the UN's power)

That one I agree with. As Flip Wilson's character Geraldine used to say: "Don't let your mouth write a check your body can't cash".

We both agree Obama shouldn't have threatened with a military action.
And I think we both agree that an empty threat is worse than no threat.

We disagree on the importance of keeping the power of threats.. If you lose the ability to use military action threats - you lose a lot of influence on what's happening in the world..
I think this power is necessary for the US to keep it's status as a superpower, and it's important to it's allies as well.