Today CNN'S Jake Tapper aired video showing convulsing Syrians in the aftermath of last month's chemical weapon attack. While these videos have previously been available online, CNN reports that the Obama administration has been showing them to select senators in closed-door briefings, in essence authenticating them.
If the global community does nothing, it's a tacit approval of a dictator using chemical weapons. Is it because the victims are Muslim? Syrian? If the victims were, say, European or Latin American, reprisals would have happened long ago.
A bombing raid is NOT a war. Be correct in your terminology. I'm not saying we should bomb the sites where the weapons were launched, but call it what it is: an approval, a shrug of the shoulders, an OK to use more chemical and biological weapons on civilians. If you're opposed, fine, but understand what you're approving.
this is such bs. you can oppose military intervention (which is always destructive and can be just as harmful to the social and familial structure of a country than anything else...that's a given) without supporting the leader. one suggestion was made to give humanitarian to the refugees and continue to attempt diplomatic exchanges with assad to coax him out of office. the latter seems weak, but still, it's on alternative that has been presented. this is not a case of either/or. all parties are guilty. the humanitarian side of it is just being drummed up so people will support the intervention. oddly, no one seemed to care a few months ago when people were getting killed. but show people reacting to chemical weapons and now it's time to act! there are countless wars going on all over the world, including the use of rape, murder, kidnapping, and yes, chemical weapons, and we do jack shit. there's more to this than just saving some people. come on.
you mean like this?
Are you seriously suggesting that "a bombing raid" upon a sovereign nation is not an act of war, and, thus, by definition, war? You can't even hedge this like you can in Pakistan, because, unlike Pakistan and the other nations where we liberally use drones for strikes, this will be a strike upon the government and military, not upon "terrorist" individuals.
Moreover, disapproving of U.S. military action is not some sort of tacit approval of Assad's action, not is it "a shrug of the shoulders."
For being upset about other people's "terminology," you are being quite loose with your own.
Wrong on two fronts.
(A) Not engaging in complex, 2 year-long civil wars where 0.015% of the deaths involve chemical weapons is not a tacit approval of anything, just as NOT supporting the bombing the White House and Pentagon is not tacit approval of the U.S. exporting violence all over the world or it's refusal to sign the international sanction against cluster bombs and land mines. The introduction of this sanction against chemical weapons is a nakedly arbitrary and self-serving pretext, not a morally urgent red line of human rights. If it were, then America would be equally outraged over the dozens of international norms we break on a daily basis - but we're not.
(B) Saying "bombing raids are not war" has to be the height of Orwell's prophecy about language being the first victim of war. Hurling hundreds of large, GPS-guided explosive devices at a sovereign country IS the definition of war. If it's not, then "war" has ceased to have any real meaning, and we've introduced a new cynical and cowardly definition - based on technological convenience not moral logic - of war to mean "any state violence which doesn't require long term risk by the aggressor country". This is PR bullshit, anyone who's experienced "bombing raids" can attest to this fact.
There IS a term for what you're talking about though (in addition to "war") that's reserved for countries that are willing to throw bombs at other countries but unwilling to send in ground troops to achieve the same objective: it's called "being big fucking pussies"
Still don't care.
Wonder if Obama has any video of Afghan and Iraqi victims of U.S. white phosphorus attacks? Oh, wait, you didn't know that the U.S. is just as guilty of using banned chemical weapons against enemy combatants?
Fuck off, Obama. If you want to start another war, pay for it yourself. Not one more dollar for war.
To be fair- he was not President then, and probably even was against those "wars."
Bullshit. The US never used chemical weapons on civilian populations in Iraq or Afganistan.
It isn't actually banned. It's banned for use against personnel, but still legal s a smoke screen. While there are major suspicions about its use, nobody was ever able to prove anything.
A more clear case is Israel's use of land mines. There's a treaty going around against their use and a bunch of countries (including the US, which has a ton of the Korean border) have gotten heat for their continuing use. Israel has been ignored on the issue because, to put it simply, not even the PA or Hamas give a shit, as Israel is the only country still using them in the way they were originally intended (in well-marked areas surrounding bases and other high-value bases) instead of just dropping them from the air to let people find out the hard way.
No one doubts that chemical weapons were used. What the Obama administration has failed to do is prove that chemical weapons were used at the behest of Assad, and not anti-Assad forces.
Yes, they have, actually. They know exactly where the missiles were launched from, and who did it. Radio intercepts from the Syrian military before, during and after the attack. It's pretty much undisputed who did it. The only debate is what to do about it.
Wasn't that the purpose of him showing congress where the gas was launched from and where it landed? Also, all the Syrians I've heard interviewed seemed pretty certain which side all the effected areas were n, and a common refrain was that the Syrian military followed the attacks with artillery to hide the evidence.
I'm not sure they have 100% proof yet but it's about 80% conclusive as it takes a suspension 0f disbelief to think the Anti-Assad forces did it. I think Kevin Drum has a theory based on German news reports that some low-level flunky in the Syrian army did it without getting approval and so the whole thing's some really stupid, messed up, completely unfunny mistake
the "radio intercept" information was provided by UK intelligence, which has a vested interest in pinning the attack on Assad's forces. We need proof of its origin from a 3rd party which does not have a major financial interest in the overthrow of Assad, because if we listen to the UK int. it's Assad and if we listen to Russian int. it was anti-Assad.
This wouldn't be the first time our government has engaged in false flag operations in service of regime change. I don't think our judgment should be based on mistrusting Russian intelligence or trusting our own Governments to be completely honest with us.
Really? We're going to spend U.S. money on Syria? What is Obama so free with money for war, but so niggardly when it comes to helping the middle class in America?
Because unlike Syria, he can't just formally announce he's going to save the Middle Class and do so. Actually, technically he can't just formally announcing targeted missile strikes on Syria either which is why he's going to Congress on that too
I see what you did there. Classy.
huh?
Seriously. Christ.
