We need a new political board contrarian...

[weso1]

First it was Crumpfly and then it was sturg. I feel like we're all agreeing too much lately on this Syria thing.

F it. I'm now for bombing Syria.

[weso1]

So how do those on the left who claim to be such humanitarians not get involved in the Syrian conflict? Many innocents are being slaughtered whether by chemical or more conventional weaponry... and by the way chemical weapons are not the first international illegal weapon used by the Syrian government. So how do you justify standing on the sidelines with the most powerful military in the world that could help prevent the death of thousands of innocent women and children? I mean you argue that you don't want the US involved in directly killing innocent civilians with bombing, but at the same time are we not indirectly allowing thousands of innocent people to die while we wait on the sidelines.

In Obama's defense, I'm not convinced this is a dick measuring thing or some sort of nonsensical sturg conspiracy. Maybe it really is a case of Obama doing what he thinks is best.

[Runnin]

There are other ways to oppose without cranking up the war machine and besides, why would anybody anywhere believe America's involvement in Middle East politics could affect a positive result? Drone Assad if you can find him but otherwise stay out.

It's hard for me to get fired up about politics one way or the other. The electorate just isn't intelligent enough to govern itself and Congress is filled with incompetents. Today 30% of responders, meaning they can at least read, believe it's a big deal that Obama put his feet up for a few seconds on an old table.

[The Chosen One]

]
In Obama's defense, I'm not convinced this is a dick measuring thing or some sort of nonsensical sturg conspiracy. Maybe it really is a case of Obama doing what he thinks is best.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7MFn-3Xu-A

[weso1]

There are other ways to oppose without cranking up the war machine and besides,

What are these ways?

[50PoundHead]

I don't trust Assad. I don't trust the rebels. weso, I agree on the humanitarian angle and if we do anything, it should be to cripple the ability to use weapons on indiscriminate killing. But that might be pie in the sky.

From someone on the left, I have no problem saying Obama has dithered here. He did a somewhat Woody Wilson thing in making these broad statements after becoming President that were so idealistic that they only exist in a sterile world. Trying to promote moderate Islamist governments that believe in religious pluralism (and some separation between church and state) may be a contradiction in terms. All indications are that's the case, whether in Egypt, Iraq, or Syria. And we've learned the hard way.

I suppose the neocon (and that's not McCain and Graham) lesson of recent vintage is to figure out what you're going to do and do it decisively (with no real calculation of long term effects) or do nothing at all. I caught John Bolton on Fox (who is certainly no Obama fan and has been highly critical of his foreign policy) about a month ago and he stated then that while Obama had clearly dithered, he didn't have any real problem with us staying on the sidelines.

I haven't read much on where Israel is in all of this. I believe I read early on they were on the side of the rebels and my guess that's for the sole reason that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." I don't see any long term friendship developing between a rebel-sponsored government and Israel, but my guess is that the Israeli government fears a stable set of opponents as opposed to chaos (pretty non-Bismarckian) and if Syria is allied with Iran and Hamas (Are they? I can't keep the players straight.), Israel would just as soon see Assad out of there.

I've rambled. I guess if the US were to get involved, it should have done it much sooner and given Assad the same ultimatum they gave Mubarak. As far as the moral angle goes (and it pains me to say this), can any foreign policy be truly based on morality instead of state interests? As it stands right now, we'll likely do something and Assad will be gone and the world will live with the results. And I fear the results of that will be as graphically horrifying as what is going on right now. I would guess every Christian in Syria will either be dead or out of the country within a week of the establishment of a new government.

[Runnin]

What are these ways?
Publicly condemn them and privately make a deal we can screw them on later. I think that's how it goes.

[BedellBrave]

I don't trust Assad. I don't trust the rebels. weso, I agree on the humanitarian angle and if we do anything, it should be to cripple the ability to use weapons on indiscriminate killing. But that might be pie in the sky.

From someone on the left, I have no problem saying Obama has dithered here. He did a somewhat Woody Wilson thing in making these broad statements after becoming President that were so idealistic that they only exist in a sterile world. Trying to promote moderate Islamist governments that believe in religious pluralism (and some separation between church and state) may be a contradiction in terms. All indications are that's the case, whether in Egypt, Iraq, or Syria. And we've learned the hard way.

I suppose the neocon (and that's not McCain and Graham) lesson of recent vintage is to figure out what you're going to do and do it decisively (with no real calculation of long term effects) or do nothing at all. I caught John Bolton on Fox (who is certainly no Obama fan and has been highly critical of his foreign policy) about a month ago and he stated then that while Obama had clearly dithered, he didn't have any real problem with us staying on the sidelines.

I haven't read much on where Israel is in all of this. I believe I read early on they were on the side of the rebels and my guess that's for the sole reason that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." I don't see any long term friendship developing between a rebel-sponsored government and Israel, but my guess is that the Israeli government fears a stable set of opponents as opposed to chaos (pretty non-Bismarckian) and if Syria is allied with Iran and Hamas (Are they? I can't keep the players straight.), Israel would just as soon see Assad out of there.

I've rambled. I guess if the US were to get involved, it should have done it much sooner and given Assad the same ultimatum they gave Mubarak. As far as the moral angle goes (and it pains me to say this), can any foreign policy be truly based on morality instead of state interests? As it stands right now, we'll likely do something and Assad will be gone and the world will live with the results. And I fear the results of that will be as graphically horrifying as what is going on right now. I would guess every Christian in Syria will either be dead or out of the country within a week of the establishment of a new government.


Good ramble 50.

I think the connections are Iran-Assad-Hezbollah and then sometimes, at least a few years ago, Hezbollah and Hamas would have connections which were of course just anti-Israel. I think Israel has tended to have back connections with Sunnis in Jordan, SA and the Gulf Emirates. Christians have been somewhat stuck in the middle and depending on which country they've found themselves in have sought to be supportive of whatever bloc provided them the most protection and/or liberty. In the West Bank for instance I remember having a conversation with an Arabic Christian over dinner and he, no fan of Israel (my group was eating in his restaurant in sight of the walls around Bethlehem), but he feared/despised Iran more (due in part to Arab/Persian animus I am sure but more so to the then saber rattling against Israel by Ahmadinejad). If I were having a conversation with an Arabic Christian brother in Syria then I suspect the greater fear would have been of jihadist-Sunnis (being sponsored by the likes of SA).

Syria is such a complex place, with the various ethnic and religious groups. We are seeing a couple of things, imho, taking place there. One, it's just another example of the Sunni-jihadist attempts to spread their form of Islam. Two, it's something of an inevitable battling over lines that were drawn by Europeans when modern Syria was formed. It seems like it would actually make more sense to have a country comprised of Lebanon and western portions of present Syria, and another country that was either a part of Iraq or a Sunni controlled Eastern Syria. In other words, maybe this is chiefly a Balkanization of the upper part of the Levant that needs to happen and we should keep our Western, know-it-all, selves out of it.

I am sure the Israelis and their supporters here in the US are trying to get us to go against Assad, due to their, "who is our main enemy at the moment" mentality. I understand their angst at the battles they've had with Iran's proxy via Assad - Hezbollah, and have cautiously appreciated any help they've gotten through Sunni Arab states. But I wonder if they ought to be more concerned - long term with some of those same Sunni "friends"? Particularly, Saudi Arabia. Dunno...

[Gary82]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UdK3ZImjPsY

[goldfly]

So how do those on the left who claim to be such humanitarians not get involved in the Syrian conflict? Many innocents are being slaughtered whether by chemical or more conventional weaponry... and by the way chemical weapons are not the first international illegal weapon used by the Syrian government. So how do you justify standing on the sidelines with the most powerful military in the world that could help prevent the death of thousands of innocent women and children? I mean you argue that you don't want the US involved in directly killing innocent civilians with bombing, but at the same time are we not indirectly allowing thousands of innocent people to die while we wait on the sidelines.

In Obama's defense, I'm not convinced this is a dick measuring thing or some sort of nonsensical sturg conspiracy. Maybe it really is a case of Obama doing what he thinks is best.

look at you trying to step up to the plate

i am proud of ya

[Julio3000]

My understanding is that Israel may support a limited and essentially punitive strike on the government in response to the chemical weapon use, but not intervention that would tip the scales toward the rebels. They're content to see stalemate and both sides bleeding, figuring that while the belligerents are focusing on each other, they and their sponsors will not be focusing on making trouble for the Israelis.

[Julio3000]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UdK3ZImjPsY

Classic.

I don't know who the actor is, but I love his delivery of the line where he tells Joker to get on over to Phu Bai. It's just dripping with **** you.

[yeezus]

Speaking of all of this why the hell do we support israel? They do some pretty ****ty things.

[Gary82]

Classic.

I don't know who the actor is, but I love his delivery of the line where he tells Joker to get on over to Phu Bai. It's just dripping with **** you.

Exactly. It's a very underrated line (with a great delivery) in a very quotable movie.

[Julio3000]

Speaking of all of this why the hell do we support israel? They do some pretty ****ty things.

BUT THEY MADE THE DESERT BLOOM.

[Dalyn]

BUT THEY MADE THE DESERT BLOOM.


AND THE BIBLE, MAN!

[BedellBrave]

Speaking of all of this why the hell do we support israel? They do some pretty ****ty things.


Who doesn't do ****ty things?

That aside, it isn't hard to imagine several reasons. Here are a few:

1. They have been the most Western-styled nation of the region which, whether we like it or not, has been strategic for our national interests.

2. We, like other Western nations, have felt a historical responsibility (i.e., the holocaust) for supporting a Jewish state.

3. They are very, very, very good at spying.

4. Typically to our left politically, they were nevertheless a Cold War ally for us in that geo-political game (which continues to some extent).

5. We have large constituencies that have ethnic/religious concerns that are tied directly to Israel.

Agree or disagree as to whether any of these ought to merit the sort of support we've traditionally given Israel, there are plenty of reasons for understanding why we've supported them as we have.

[Dalyn]

Who doesn't do ****ty things?

That aside, it isn't hard to imagine several reasons. Here are a few:

1. They have been the most Western-styled nation of the region which, whether we like it or not, has been strategic for our national interests.

2. We, like other Western nations, have felt a historical responsibility (i.e., the holocaust) for supporting a Jewish state.

3. They are very, very, very good at spying.

4. Typically to our left politically, they were nevertheless a Cold War ally for us in that geo-political game (which continues to some extent).

5. We have large constituencies that have ethnic/religious concerns that are tied directly to Israel.

Agree or disagree as to whether any of these ought to merit the sort of support we've traditionally given Israel, there are plenty of reasons for understanding why we've supported them as we have.

1. Agree.

2. We may FEEL it, but we don't have it (fits the list, though).

3. Eh. True or not, I don't think it fits in this list. Plenty of countries are 'very, very, very' good at spying.

4. Valid. Not sure how much, at this point.

5. This, unfortunately, is the biggest reason. A person can't be elected president without telling anyone who will listen that they support Israel.

Israel continues to take advantage of the support. It is getting old.

[BedellBrave]

#3 is on my list because I suspect we benefit from that ability immensely. Though their ability also means we can be - are the target as well.

[Dalyn]

#3 is on my list because I suspect we benefit from that ability immensely. Though their ability also means we can be - are the target as well.

Not disagreeing, just curious what makes you suspect that?

[jpx7]

Today 30% of responders, meaning they can at least read, believe it's a big deal that Obama put his feet up for a few seconds on an old table.

I saw that story and just ...

[jpx7]

I mean you argue that you don't want the US involved in directly killing innocent civilians with bombing, but at the same time are we not indirectly allowing thousands of innocent people to die while we wait on the sidelines.

By that logic and in that context, the US should have intervened – militarily or otherwise – a long time ago in Palestine.

[Runnin]

5. We have large constituencies that have ethnic/religious concerns that are tied directly to Israel.
6. Without US financial support Israel could not exist, and without an Israeli state Biblical prophecy starts to fall apart.

Does that sound right, Bedell?

[CK86]

I wish there was a way we could support the civilian population in Syria with humanitarian aid but let that be the extent of our involvement in the conflict.

[zitothebrave]

The Daily Show's take on the Middle East is funny but true

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-september-4-2013/sir-archibald-mapsalot-iii

[BedellBrave]

6. Without US financial support Israel could not exist, and without an Israeli state Biblical prophecy starts to fall apart.

Does that sound right, Bedell?


Except that Biblical prophecy doesn't fall apart in that scenario, even though plenty think it does (wrongly, imho). That's why I'm not wedded at the hip to a secular Jewish state.

[BedellBrave]

Not disagreeing, just curious what makes you suspect that?


Because virtually every spy novel known to man tells me this? :winking0016:

[weso1]

By that logic and in that context, the US should have intervened – militarily or otherwise – a long time ago in Palestine.

Bomb them all. The Isrealis and the Palestinians. You are a heartless bastard if you disagree.

[goldfly]

what i have learned from this fishing expedition of a thread

is that everything is black or white

[weso1]

what i have learned from this fishing expedition of a thread

is that everything is black or white

I don't think you really learned that.

[goldfly]

I don't think you really learned that.

i heart you

[jpx7]

Bomb them all. The Isrealis and the Palestinians. You are a heartless bastard if you disagree.

I'd settle for the US not hypocritically protecting Israeli interests – such as their (de facto) "right" to bomb, shoot, gas, torture, jail, and "resettle" an autochthonous people – leaving the bombs out of it.

[Runnin]

Because virtually every spy novel known to man tells me this? :winking0016:
The First Victim of Sept. 11
He was likely the first person killed, but his influence was felt that entire terrible day—online. (http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/history/2013/09/danny_lewin_the_first_victim_on_9_11_and_an_archit ect_of_the_internet.html)

"Just before 8 a.m. on Sept. 11, 2001, American Airlines Flight 11 took off from Boston’s Logan Airport. Bound non-stop for Los Angeles, the flight was just one of more than 40,000 scheduled to crisscross the country that day. The plane was partially full—81 passengers, nine crewmembers, and two pilots. Many of its passengers were traveling for work on the daily scheduled flight, including 31-year-old Internet entrepreneur Danny Lewin. ....."