Syria

I have lost my way.

I usually don't show too much anger when I write because I try to sound intelligent and scholarly (I probably fail there) but this Syria thing has me livid. I referred on my Facebook page to the pro-war politicians, including war hero Republican John McCain, as “worms” in a post yesterday. I am sorry for that. I should not have called them worms – as worms serve an important purpose. However, if I were to call worms “politicians” then I would apologize to the worms for insulting them.

I realize that this upcoming war for "moral reasons" as the abominable John Kerry calls it --- and also how foolish, posturing pro-war Democrats and Republicans seem to hungrily desire it --- is an idiotic continuation of the constant mistakes we make in the Middle East.

We do not have any national interest in this civil war within Syria. The latest reports show that many of the secular rebels are just about finished and the Muslim extremists have the most powerful forces going against Assad. And McCain wants to arm them! (I wonder if he has stock in some type of munitions company.)

It seems there are no “good” sides in most of these conflicts if by “good” we mean sides favorable to the United States. McCain was attempting to paint the “Allahu Akbar” crowd as merely people who enjoy saying this phrase the way “we” (meaning Christians and Jews) say “thank God.” I don’t know about you but if I hear someone shouting Allahu Akbar as I board a plane, run a marathon or go to a public restroom, I figure I am going to be blown up. If I hear someone say “Thank God!” I figure the person just won a scratch off ticket.

More than 100,000 Syrians have died in this civil war, about 1,500 by gassing. The other 98,500 died in acceptable ways --- bullets, bombs, knives, choking on smoke from fire --- you know the tried and true war stuff. The Syrians, kids and adults, who died miserable deaths over several days and weeks from their wounds; the Syrians, kids and adults, who are walking around missing various limbs and facial parts, they are just the price paid for war – as long as they have been deformed properly.

For some reason, it’s the ones who were gassed that require the United States to fly in there, bomb the crap out of them (killing more Syrians and perhaps seeing some of our planes shot down) in order to teach them a lesson. Teach who a lesson? If Syria decided to gas one of our allies (say England) then maybe we’d step in and go to war with them. On second thought, if Syria decided to do a blitz against England using “allowable weapons” we’d help England the same way. But no one in Syria, no realistically contending group that is, can be considered one of our allies. I’m guessing the continuum of Syrian feelings goes from “we hate America” to “we really hate America.”

Now, say Assad (and his annoying 11-year-old son Hafez al-Assad who supposedly called America nasty names and made fun of us) pulls a Benghazi on us? Or say Syria bombs one or more of our ships --- before we did anything to them --- then, hell, level the country. We are now at war.

But here is what would happen if Syria attacked us (be it with bombs or chemicals). We’d say (through Eric Holder), “That is not nice. We will find the individuals who did this and punish them after a fair trial.” That kind of response would have been dizzying after Pearl Harbor. “We will find the Japanese responsible for this and punish them.”

Having read up on Japanese history, not all Japanese were gung-ho for World War II. That didn’t matter; if they were in Hiroshima they got vaporized or suffered the effects of radiation poisoning – perhaps far worse than being gassed.

But America has justifiable claims that we did the right thing to Japan; horrible though that right thing might be. Japan, the country, was our enemy. They attacked us; they fought us for years in the Pacific, so we crushed them.

What has Syria yet done to us? Seems to me they have done nothing and therefore, at the moment, deserve nothing from us.

Quote: FrankScoblete

What has Syria yet done to us? Seems to me they have done nothing and therefore, at the moment, deserve nothing from us.

For that matter, what did the North Koreans do?

The North Vietnamese?

The Iraqis?

The Afghans?

deleted

There will never be stability in the middle east. I support airstrikes.

As symbolic as air strikes are, there will always be civilian side-effects from such a strike. The US decides that the good of the many outweighs the needs of the few, or the one. What right does the USA (or any other country) have in intruding into another country's civil strife?

The thing is that the USA (and Russia, and China, and other countries) have done this through the years. Like it or not, this is what superpowers do, provide money and arms to its interests throughout the world to promote its own interests. In the United States' case, it is regime change to support Israel and stability in the region in order to stabilize oil prices. Of course this is a pragmatic view of the situation. Of course, the United States morally does not support the proliferation of non-conventional weapons. It is quite easy to weaponize these and present an opportunity for small countries to wage asymmetric warfare against the USA. When the USA can promote its actions as part of moral right (we can't allow nations to use chemical or biological warfare against its own citizens) and accomplish its interests, it becomes a populist movement that the citizens can get behind and support.

From my perspective, any incursions by a foreign country only will support an eventual terrorist movement. The American drone that drops a bomb on a chemical weapons factory and takes out or maims a family will create a generation of terrorists who will aim to destroy America. Amercians need to accept this -- they already have to some extent.

I honestly don't know how I feel about this. I don't want to live in a world where a government can mass-kill its non-combatants without condemnation and effective censure. I don't think we belong in Syria or any other country suffering through a civil war as the decency police. It was the Kurdish genocide more than any other factor that forced me to accept the need to intervene in Iraq. The Final Solution equivalency is, in a very rare occurence, a valid comparison to the Syrian situation. But I am very skeptical that any currently proposed action would be effective. And what makes killing by conventional means vs. chemical warfare any more acceptable, as the entire chain of events has implied? So we somehow bomb the chemical weaponry out of use; they just go back to machine-gunning crowds of women and children, and that's somehow all right? I just don't know. I think the snake needs to be cut off at the head, and no other action short of that will have outcomes that outweigh the consequences.

Diversity Tomorrow?

Quote: thecesspit

Diversity Tomorrow?

You are fighting a losing battle, and for good reason. I would venture to guess that a majority of posts on WoV are not 'gambling related', but I and many others are interested in the thoughts of my gambling buddies on a variety of issues.

As far as the issue.... I like Mr. Scoblete's point that we were less interested in intervening when he was just shooting his citizens.... but kill a very small percentage of the total dead with a biological weapon.....
I guess I am selfish.... I do not want to risk one American soldier in what will be a futile effort.... see Iraq.... see Afghanistan...

We are the Gang that Patrols its few square blocks in the City, yet now and again takes a stroll outside the neighborhood when something happens down the way that we view as potentially threatening to our turf.

Somebody used a machete in a knife fight in the next neighborhood and we gotta settle things down.

It's a tough place to live.

Quote: thecesspit

Diversity Tomorrow?

Diversity today?

I'm not going to pay attention to this till it comes
out as an Xbox game. Then I'll comment.

Can anybody tell me if Kerry is really related to the Bush's? It seems to me, there was a documentary a while back that stated he was. It might have been that Moore film.

9th cousin, twice removed.

Obama, elects Kerry this year, and we are going to war.

In 1960-1961, A foreign exchange student from Kenya impregnates a U.S. citizen, to give birth to our current President, of whom elects John Kerry as Sec. of State this year. Of whom is pushing us to go to war. Kerry is currently married to Maria Teresa Thierstein Simões-Ferreira Heinz, she was born and raised in Mozambique. She was previously married to former Senator John Heinz III, who died in a plane crash in 1991. She met former Senator John Heinz III, in summer of 1961, in which they courted each other and finally married in 1965. She became a naturalized citizen in 1971. She was appointed to the State Department by former Pres. George H.W. Bush; this is the department now headed by Kerry.

What are the odds that a man born in Kenya, fathers a later to be President of the U.S., in 1961; and a woman born in Mozambique, courts a later to be U.S. Senator, in 1961, of which she later marries, of which he later dies in a plane crash, of which then she marries another U.S. Senator, of which is later appointed as Sec. of State, by the son of the man born in Kenya?

1. When Japan bombed Pearl Harbor that was an act of war against us by another country. We responded. Ultimately we bombed them in the biggest way in all of history.

2. When we (or "if" we) bomb Syria is not that an act of war against Syria? Syria has not attacked us. Yet.

3. A new video was sent to me by my lawyer cousin Maria that shows an Islamist rebel soldier in Syria eating the heart and lung (I think it was the lung) of one of Assad's dead soldiers. McCain, Kerry, Obama and the pro-war faction wish to give more arms to this group. (Okay, maybe send some knives and forks, a little salt.)

4. Vladimir Putin (no less) mentioned this eating video in his latest speech and asked whether we really want to arm these people. I don't think our current Vlad is much better than Vlad the Impaler but he does have a point here.

5. War is sloppy. Obama and Kerry are saying this will be a controlled strike and clean. There are no guarantees in something such as this. Just read Winston Churchill's remarks about the nature of war and you get a clean picture of how unclean and untidy and unpredictable war can be.

6. Do we really want to "Pearl Harbor" another country; give weapons to people who might eat other people; and take a chance that our perfect attack plan blows up in our faces?

Since many of the readers of these pages prefer to only talk about gambling, let me put it this way: Do you think attacking Syria is a good bet?

Quote: thecesspit

Diversity Tomorrow?

Serenity Now?

As to my thoughts, we should not be involved. A few things seem to be driving this. One, France has a special place in their heart for areas they formerly colonized or/and helped gum up. Second, Obama seems to realize too late that a POTUS cannot just draw red lines and not stand behind them. He doesn't want to give the needed "push" to the effort, not surprising as he does not give much personal push to anything. But what has happened is he has become the guy in the tourney holding JJ with a short stack. Not a bad hand, but not great, and increasing blinds mean he has to go all-in or fold. He raised when he asked for the use of force resolution, probably hoping he would be turned down. But instead he has been raised. Letting the aircraft carrier sail off the coast isn't going to do it.

It is amusing to watch his base all become hawks. It will be more and more funny as time goes on. The low-information types (ie: his base) will not notice, but others will. Most likely he will try to repeat Kosovo by having an air-war with zero casualties. Chances are against this as air power alone has a spotty record at best. And this time Russia is not on their back, they will send weapons to try to down planes. Iran, too, will play the proxy-war to all it can be worth. China is also stronger.

The UN may very well say "NO." Unless concessions are granted to China and Russia to abstain. What will he have to give away for bombing a place we have no interest in?

Reality is that the USA has to look out for our interests. Getting involved in a Syrian civil war is not one. Sorry if it does not sound humanitarian, but you need to let sides in a civil war fight it out. Then if the victor is not of your liking, take them when they are much weakened. For those who do not know what I mean, watch the first few minutes of "From Russia With Love."

Obama might very well be handing 2016 to the GOP!

Probably the first I have agreed with fools over at Huffington Post. But it is funny seeing them figure out how to handle it while still praising everything this President does.

Do I think it's a good bet? No.

The Americans have bombed plenty of countries. Libya I think comes to mind of most recent. Obama took out UBL with bullets in Pakistan... doesn't mean that the USA is at war with Pakistan, though a similar act on our soil against any US Citizen by a foreign government certainly would be taken as an act of war, a bit hypocritical by my standards.

America believes that it is morally better than other countries because of its love of freedom, capitalism and democracy and its social values (right or wrong). It secured their freedom via revolution. I never subscribed to America exercising its moral authority over other countries because frankly, it doesn't present good moral authority to its own citizens. Rather, I think America (its politicians, not its people) uses moral authority as a cover to pull of its political motives (cheaper oil, stability, defense of Israel). For if America really gave a shit about citizens around the world, it would have cured the hunger/disease problems in Africa, prevented the genocides in Africa, and gave North Koreans their freedom. If Syria was located in eastern Asia or in the middle of Africa around where say, Mongolia or Nigeria is, this wouldn't be a problem. But Syria's important because it's an enemy of Israel and a Muslim state.

Take away Obama's Nobel Peace Prize. What a freaking joke that was. Give it to the leader of Hezbollah instead.

The biggest problem with Syria is there are at least 3 sides, maybe 4, and not a single "good-guy" in sight. It's not like the forces of democracy are fighting for freedom against the oppressors. All the factions involved are the oppressors, or will be if they gain power. We don't want to be allied long term with any of these people and none of them represent stability or progress in a region of the world that desperately needs it. So the farther away we stay the better.

Quote: vendman1

The biggest problem with Syria .

The biggest problem with Syria is they only have one
casino, and that's very recent. I judge every country
by the number of casinos they have. I love France.

I wonder what the games are like at the Pyongyang Casino and Yanggakdo Hotel.

Here's a quote from americaninnorthkorea.com

Quote:

Welcome to basement floor #1 of the Yanggakdo International Hotel of Pyongyang, the one and only red light district open to foreigners in all of North Korea. Don’t expect to find any North Koreans in this shady area, this floor is forbidden to residents and staffed only by Chinese workers. Here the adventurous can party at the Egypt Palace Karaoke and Nightclub, try their luck at the Casino Pyongyang, and get a naughty Chinese massage in the VIP room of the Golden Spring Island Sauna. While this all sounds like a Hangover movie in the making, in reality don’t expect too much. During my visit to basement floor #1 I found the nightclub closed, the casino empty and depressing, and the naughty massage parlor simply intimidating.

Edit: more descriptive post on the Pyongyang Casino: fascinating.

Quote: boymimbo

For if America really gave a shit about citizens around the world, it would have cured the hunger/disease problems in Africa, prevented the genocides in Africa, and gave North Koreans their freedom.

I am guessing that you didn't see that we cured smallpox in Africa? And missed the many food drives over the years? And the efforts to stop AIDS under Bush43?

As to N Koreans, it is not my fault that Truman didn't let Macarthur drop an A-Bomb on China after their illegal invasion, but the stalemate has kept the Chicoms hands off S Korea. At the same time, USA protection of and trade with has turned S Korea from a basket case that was similar to N Korea to a rich, dynamic nation.

Quote:

Take away Obama's Nobel Peace Prize. What a freaking joke that was.

People like me said that the day it was issued. He only won it for being someone other than Bush.

"get a naughty Chinese massage in the VIP room.. and the naughty massage parlor simply intimidating..."

Hmm, I wonder whats considered 'naughty' in N Korea. In the
States, naughty means you're 3 year old just crammed his
ice cream cone into the DVR. I bet it means more than that
in Korea.

We should tread very carefully when it comes to intervening in another country's civil war.

Think "War Between the States:" I think there would have been powerful resentment / hatred had the European powers attempted to intervene more vociferously.

No, let them duke it out, then deal with whoever comes out on top.

Russian Nuclear Attack Submarines are patrolling 200 miles off the East Coast of the United State's concerns me.

Do you remember how the Gulf War Started?

An envoy was sent to Iraq to talk to Saddam Hussein. In this meeting it was expressed to Hussein that the US would not get involved if Iraq invaded Kuwait because there was no treaty or treaty of protection between Kuwait and the USA. A few days later Iraq invaded Kuwait and a few day later we went to war with Iraq in Operation Kuwaiti Freedom. This concerns me. Recently Russia has publicly stated it wouldn't get involved. There is no treaty or treaty of protection between Russia and the USA and I am not sure if Syria has a treaty or treaty of protection with Russia.

I still support airstrikes in Syria.
Welcome to Cold War II

Quote: FrankScoblete

Since many of the readers of these pages prefer to only talk about gambling, let me put it this way: Do you think attacking Syria is a good bet?

We bomb. (I suspect pictures of dead children killed by American bombs are already made)
We don't bomb, maybe Syria keeps gassing.

Should we have ignored Germany if they just gassed people and stayed in their borders? Or what is the threshold before you act, if you do?

Quote: rxwine

Should we have ignored Germany if they just gassed people and stayed in their borders? Or what is the threshold before you act, if you do?

We "ignored" Germany until they declared war on us.

You act if there is a vital national interest. There is none in Syria.

Quote: AZDuffman

We "ignored" Germany until they declared war on us.


You act if there is a vital national interest. There is none in Syria.

So, outside of national interest another Auschwitz is okay by you? Don't try to pretend otherwise now. That's exactly what you're implying.

Quote: rxwine

So, outside of national interest another Auschwitz is okay by you? Don't try to pretend otherwise now. That's exactly what you're implying.

Where is there another Auschwitz happening?

Quote: AZDuffman

Where is there another Auschwitz happening?

The point is chemical weapons are indiscriminate. (aFaik) So, it's mass slaughter the more they are used. A bomb may take out a target but it can be at least argued it can be pointed toward hostile targets.

I don't know what the threshold for "holocaust" should be, but perhaps there should at least be some consideration that there might have to be one at some point if Syria steps up use of chemical weapons.

If there is no problem with using chem weapons, we should have used them in Iraq and Aghanistan, because it would certainly been advantageous instead of trying to hit targets of military interest. Just release the human pesticide and check back later.

rxwine. I politely disagree.

I am not a pacifist, but no one attacked us. Discussing the way a weapon spreads in someone else's country is not how one should look at this --- otherwise those hefty bunker bombs, those huge (i forget the name!) bombs that really spread out and, of course, nuclear bombs have greater far greater spread. With nuclear bombs you have radiation that really spreads. The major powers have a whole host of weapons that spread. Even non-spread bombing with many bombs has a far, far greater spread than gas. Check out the commercials for "Wounded Warrior" and the results of "normal" warfare are just as bad as the results of "unnormal" gas warfare --- long time, painful and often permanently debilitating.

In cases where we bomb other nations who have not attacked us we are "Pearl Harboring" them.

Also, this Germany analogy is not accurate. When we spread analogies out they become misleading. In China Mao killed 60 million people during the cultural revolution --- this is before they had nuclear weapons. MacArthur wanted to use nuclear weapons against them. Stalin killed some 22 million of his citizens, many millions just by starving them. How come we didn't attack them for such an atrocity?

Right now in countries all over Africa and other areas brutal civil wars are raging. There is wholesale slaughter, massive raping, the spreading of AIDS, deliberate starvation of populations. Should we now get involved in all of these countries?

*** The real thought-question is not what we are talking about now. It is this, "What if a country harbors those who attacked us, such as the radical Islamists? Do we go on the offensive in such countries? If so, how so?"

But the question in all these places is the ability to act, and whether you can accomplish the particular thing you're trying to do and at what risk.

Can you dissuade Assad from using chemical weapons showing him that you're going to damage what protects him and his regime if he does so? Yes. I think someone has probably made that calculation already.

He's in a civil war. They want him to reconsider his course, think twice, or three times about taking more losses if he does want to use chemical weapons again, and that is the plan as I hear it so far.

...also, the "results of normal warfare". I have to ask, do you really think we weren't of capable killing 10, 20 times more Iraqis with conventional weapons?

We weren't actually deploying the weapons in a manner equivalent of WMDs. Yes, we could have dropped "Daisy cutters" (the name you were looking for) in the most populated housing areas of Baghdad. That's what you do when you want to create massive deaths of civilians.

It's true, you can only do so much to not hit areas you don't want to hit with explosives, but one has to consider what we could do if we intentionally wanted to produce a massive death toll.

Quote: boymimbo

Take away Obama's Nobel Peace Prize. What a freaking joke that was.

Amen... as AZ and I said at the time

Let us say that Putin removes his mask and we see he is the direct spawn of Stalin. Now he decides to gas Chechnya killing exactly the same number of people as have been gased in Syria.

Do we bomb Russia?

Quote: FrankScoblete

Let us say that Putin removes his mask and we see he is the direct spawn of Stalin. Now he decides to gas Chechnya killing exactly the same number of people as have been gased in Syria.

Do we bomb Russia?

Heck, closer to home 12,000 were murdered in the Mexican Drug War last year alone, 8.5 times the number killed in Syria. Do we invade Mexico like we did last century to stop violence?

The United Nations is supposed to be the world's watchdog, and because of geopolitical issues and the rights for the big countries to veto security council votes, it's become useless for making those decisions (the United Nations is useful for alot of other good things in the world). The United States took over this role sometimes in the early 90s when it decided to wage war on Saddam for invading Kuwait, and continued through the Clinton era when it took sides in the Yugoslavia conflict, and it probably started much earlier than that (not to put blame on Bush 41). AZ will find earlier instances for sure that involved some democrat action, but that's not the point. I'm trying to be apolitical here.

Perhaps you can believe that the United States is altrusitic in these matters and state that Syria's use of chemical weapons is "crossing a line", which of course, it is. It crosses a line because using non-conventional weapons gives one side an immediate and tremendous advantage over the other side, asymmetric warfare. The question then becomes, "should the United States do something about it?".

That said, a unilateral decision by the US government to attack the Syrian government (its chemical weapon facilitiies) without broadbased political support from other countries will fall flat. In the case of Syria, it needs to place Russia as the "lone wolf" in supporting Assad.

Syria is a very close ally to Russia and to China to some extent. Russia has an interest in keeping the Assad regime in power and the country in the hands of its government. Russia has significant investment in Syria. Tartus, on the Meditteranian, is Russia's only military base outside of the former Soviet Union and is very important strategically. And Russia and China do not support "Western intervention" and there is still a bitter taste from what happened in Libya.

If the United States is clearly altruistic in nature, it would just go ahead and bomb the chemical facilities and let the chips fall where they may. It would provide billions of dollars in arms to the Rebels so that they could overthrow Assad's regime. It would then liberate North Korea, stop genocides in Africa, and so on and so forth. But this decision has many political overtones that go well beyond altruism. Russia will undoubtably supply Assad with more arms to balance the power while the west will continue to supply the rebels with more arms. Millions have already fled Syria as refugees to Turkey and Jordan.

In my opinion, the West will not accomplish regime change here. A limited attack on CW facilities has great risk and will just escalate the war. In short, in my opinion, this conflict is internal and needs to be resolved by Russia. And if Russia is resolving the issue, then the Rebels need to be destroyed. The best way that the west can intervene is try to assist Russia to finding a peaceful resolution that doesn't involving killing every Rebel and their family.

Good luck with that.

Over 25,000 Americans died accidental deaths on American highways in 2012, but I don't see us banning cars and trucks.

Besides, fomenting dissension and conflict within Arab states would seem to favor the interests of Israel, our ally in the Middle East.

Ah, I just read that Syria has "nuclear facilities;" maybe our true rationale is to prevent them from developing The Bomb.

Then again, were that our intent we should have hammered Iran into the Stone Age some time ago.

Tough to find rhyme or reason in our foreign policy.

Quote: FrankScoblete

Let us say that Putin removes his mask and we see he is the direct spawn of Stalin. Now he decides to gas Chechnya killing exactly the same number of people as have been gased in Syria.

Do we bomb Russia?

Is it smarter to fight everyone or do you pick your fights?

What's right or wrong stays the same. But it matters who you are dealing with and what you can do about it in the real world.

Okay, we aren't dealing with morality here or doing the right thing. If the following countries used chemical weapons would we attack them?

Russia
China
England
France
Germany
Japan
Canada
Australia
New Zealand

I say we wouldn't. They are too big and/or too strong and/or our friends.

But what if some small country the size of Panama did it? Or Tuvalu? I say we then could get really moral. (I have no idea of Tuvalu. I just know it is a small country.)

I also find the slow dancing between John Kerry and John McCain to almost be at the level of grinding. Sister Jerome Drake would not have tolerated that.

And the ultimate irony for me personally is this: I agree with Vladimir Putin's analysis of these events and also his calling Kerry a liar concerning whether these rebels are Muslim extremists or not.

" I agree with Vladimir Putin's analysis of these events " Based upon his love of truth, justice, and the American way of life ? ? ?

Nope. Putin is correct because the major rebels are now the Muslim extremists. The secular Syrian rebel group is essentially finished. What remains are a combination of various Islamist groups who will take over if Assad is defeated. Actually I really don't care who wins their war --- and it is their war --- I just care that we would be making a major error "Pearl Harboring" Syria.

Yes, Kerry lied. McCain lied. Putin is being self-serving but at the same time he is correct.

Quote: Buzzard

" I agree with Vladimir Putin's analysis of these events " Based upon his love of truth, justice, and the American way of life ? ? ?

Still waiting for your source. Unless you are posting this in Syria ?

deleted

I met McCain at the Mirage in Vegas many moons ago. I was thoroughly unimpressed.

Had you met him in a Vietnam POW cell, you might have been impressed. luckily, you did not !

Don't get your panties in a bunch.....just my opinion.

What? Have I not the right to express mine ? LOL

It's not that you expressed an opinion. It's the manner in which you did. No big deal though.

Buzz, now that I think about it......I'll just kick your butt in the NFL contest.....

Vietnam Era vet here. A little too sensitive sometimes. I apologize. Now give me a winner at the track. PLEASE !