As the US prepares to attack Syria, this makes the rush to war against Iraq look like a long slog. The alleged chemical attack only took place a week ago, and it has yet to be confirmed by any independent observers whatsoever. Yet the cruise missiles are already being targeted.
The average American has no idea what’s going on there, can’t name more than one city in the country, and probably has no idea that we are supporting radical Islamists there. Meanwhile, you have to ask yourself, why would Assad use chemical weapons?
He isn’t stupid. He’s a well-educated, calculating, intelligent despot. He knows that chemical weapons would draw down the wrath of the international community. Not to mention give Obama an excuse for war. I seriously doubt that Assad ordered this attack.
Parenthetically, anyone who doubts that there is really no substantial difference between Democrats and Republicans should remember that John Kerry, just gave a bloodthirsty speech, what is the alternative to Bush in 2004. Now it seems that he probably would have pursued the same policies as Bush.
9 Comments.
Yes, both parties support the military and war, but I think there is likely to be a significant difference in how they prosecute the war. Also, I do not think there is the slightest chance in hell Al Gore would have involved the US in Iraq. My feeling is that Dems like to limit their wars to bombing campaigns where as Republicans seem to like to actually deploy ground troops. Bombing campaigns are shorter, cheaper, then the total war approach Republicans favor. Of course I’d prefer neither, but I chose the lesser of two evils– the Democrats. They are obviously the better choice.
Kerry said that “nothing today is more serious” than what is going on in Syria. I disagree. I think that what is happening in the USA is more serious. Government should exist to help and support our nation first – not the other way around, to drain and use the resources of our nation to run around the world policing everything. We resorted to using napalm and agent orange when we were losing in Vietnam, so where is this moral high ground? Consider the percentage of civilians and children that our efforts have directly or or indirectly kiled in the last 10 years in the middle east, and continue to do so. I agree with Ted that knowing it would provoke other nations (like the US), that Assad wouldn’t be so stupid as to actually start using chemical weapons for killing civilians. Since when is the method of killing so much more important than the killing itself? I would not be surprised if the rebels introduced them to the battlefield themselves to garner sympathy and support. We already saw our government “cook the books” to justify Iraq and Afghanistan, and this looks like another WMD bullshit fest. This call to arms is bogus – just like the Iraq and Afghanistan debacles – another tarbaby to fuel our military-industrial complex. I just had a long converstion with a Marine who served in both Iraq and Afghanistan, and he just shook his head and said that Americans do not understand the mindset and culture of these people, and that we need to avoid them until they enter the 20th century – not even the 21st – as they live in an ancient culture of constant revenge and retaliation. No Mr. Kerry, Americans need to help Americans first, and the idea that getting embroiled in another war instead of putting all this money and effort into another war is sick when we have our own domestic problems that ARE MORE SERIOUS. Let them sort themselves out!
Actually, “you have to ask yourself, why would Assad use chemical weapons” … on the anniversary of Obumma’s “Red Line” speech?
That gas they used in Waco was outlawed by the Geneva conventions, n’est-ce pas?
Keep in mind, the point of all this is devastation and disruption. What the government calls “stability” is actually “instability.” Up is down. They need the population weak and reeling in order to keep them compliant.
How is this shown? Ask yourself this: what policy does the U.S. want from the rebels?
That is the only relevant question.
War is “continuation of politics by other means,” says von Clausewitz. So war has a political objective. So what’s the political objective here?
It can’t be “help the Syrian people” because that’s fucking meaningless. It’s like saying “I will do good things, not bad things, while in office.” It defines nothing.
If the people of Syria are what’s valuable, how is the U.S. government to help them? Presumably by backing the rebels. Okay, now we’re getting somewhere. Obviously, helping the rebels is wothless unless the rebels win, so now we ask “what do we want from a rebel win?”
And the answer isn’t forthcoming, which makes no sense. . . unless this is all bullshit and the government doesn’t give a shit about the people of Syria.
You would NEVER jump into a business with a partner unless you had a clear business plan (or were an idiot). You would similarly never jump into a war unless you knew where you stood with your ally. But you don’t care about the policies of a pawn because you will abandon them shortly.
That’s what’s happening here. This is not a hard issue. Sure, you may think that helping the rebels is the right thing to do, but it doesn’t fucking matter because the U.S. under no circumstances will help the rebels in the long run. That option is off the table. The U.S. may crush the Assad regime, but it has no intention of helping Syria, so there is no real debate here. The U.S. wants instability — which it calls stability — and intervention is the only sure-fire way to get it.
This is a trickier version of the Iraq war runup. A friend of mine floated the idea that getting rid of Saddam was “worth it.” I shot that down because the U.S. couldn’t care less about Saddam or the Iraqi people, so Saddam would just be replaced with rape and terror squads. He had failed to analyze the intent of policymakers, assuming that their intent paralleled his because their short-term policies (short-term as in mere days) paralleled his own.
Never do that. It’ll make you stupid.
RTV has been covering this extensively, pointing out the similarities to the Bush, Jr campaign to get Americans on board his Iraq War. But they’re not the same.
Right after Obama made his first ‘red-line’ speech, some of the Saudi mercenaries (paid by Saudi, not necessarily from Saudi) reported that al-Assad had used chemical weapons, so the US had to act. And Obama acted: he said the US would take action after a massive chemical attack. That took a bit longer, but last week we all saw what was clearly an attack with poison gas, so there is no real doubt that poison gas has been used in Syria.
The administration lies, along with the UK and the French, that all the fighters in Syria are just oppressed Syrians who have no access to chemical weapons,and that al-Assad and al-Assad alone has any access to chemical weapons, so, if one has been used, it must have been by al-Assad.
And one has clearly been used.
But the mercenaries might also have used the chemical weapons and killed hundreds.
One might say, ‘There is no way to know,’ but one would be wrong. If the inspectors can ask enough people, and if government ears have been prevented from listening, the survivors could tell enough for the UN Weapons team to figure out who is most likely to have deployed the chemical weapons.
Andy,
Dems are worse because (I’ll paraphrase Ted’s recent words) their kind of war is impersonal, mechanical, and SEEMS cleaner and more surgical. They SANITIZE war and make it more acceptable! I really don’t think I’ve ever seen anything so disgusting as Kerry and Obama speaking with “MORAL OUTRAGE” about the murder of civilians when it is their own policy! This underscores the inherent hypocrisy of this and all presidential administrations. Reminds me of, “We decide who is allowed to have nukes even though we’re the ones who couldn’t be trusted because we used them!”
rikster,
Absolutely. It is much more likely the rebels used them. Everyone seems to be becoming so cynical and expedient…”Since when is the method of killing so much more important than the killing itself?” That was my most prominent reaction, but the sentiment is of course rhetorical. It reminds me of the way people would talk about Hussein, “He killed his own people. HIS OWN PEOPLE!!!” Since when does it matter whose civilians a guy kills?
Tyler,
Yeah…we don’t have any moral authority in that regard. Whenever the pols do this kind of thing, I have an “Is this real life?” reaction.
Sekhment,
It irks me whenever they talk about events in terms of ‘stability,’ and you make an interesting point about that. I’ve thought of it as meaning they just want someone in charge who will give us what we want, but in this past decade, pols really seem to want chaos. ‘It’s like saying “I will do good things, not bad things, while in office.”‘ Reminds me of Jon Stewart’s bit about the Romney/Ryan ticket and how they didn’t ever say anything specific about their plans or views. “A Romney administration will do good, not bad, for bad is the worse of those two options.”
I see that the Obama administration is going to be providing evidence to back their assertions about Syria.
Hmm. Let me see if I have it right. An extremely secretive, highly vindictive administration that has gone after more whistleblowers with the charge of espionage than the entirety of the administrations that came before them, all the way back to George Washington, is going to provide us with evidence.
Will be allowed to question? Or will that be a sign that we’re terrorists? What about our partners? Will they be stopped and searched, held for interrogation? Will we be put into a cell for 23 hours a day stark naked and forced to ask for toilet paper every time we defecate?
Even if none of that happens, the real problem is that we all know how easy it is to cook the books. Look at the resources the CIA has. How hard would it be to gas a few Syrians and blame it on whomever was necessary in order to start the war? Tonkin Gulf? Nayirah? Yellowcake uranium?
We’re about to be lied into another war. We have millions of unemployed people, and the war isn’t even going to give them jobs. But it will allow the security state to increase surveillance, check more of our bags, stripsearch more of our children, etc.
Am I the only one who has ever read history? The country’s at the debt ceiling already. How are we going to pay for this? Are there any generations left to pass the buck to? Anyone with some economics knowledge care to shed some light?
Kerry, Obama and the rest of their ilk are crazy. Even the majority of Americans are very tired of them constantly crying wolf, but they think they can “justify” their way towards another outspilling of weapons and destruction while the US flounders its way through a recession while millions of Americans suffer poverty and an inability to make a decent living for themselves and their families. Can you imagine all these resources and efforts turned around to help the US? Imagine Obama and Kerry weaseling and justifying the need for an immediate jobs program, mending the safety net for those less fortunate, and actually implementing the existing laws to prevent another financial meltdown. If they can bypass Congress and laws to justify another military excursion ( tarbaby war ), then they could certainly do this – but they won’t, they’re crazy. They’ve got their tinfoil “leaders of the world” hats on, and they can’t see that they are stomping on the US people as they tread their way to more death and destruction in places and situations that are not as important as actually doing there job as Leader of the USA first, not Leaders of the World.