"A Problem Like Syria" -- Part Two...

Again I apologize for not reading all the comments since my last but I just haven't the time. I did read Rick's of course and I want to respond:

"Doing harm" well it seems as if that's unavoidable by everyone, particularly by Bashir al-Assad hmm.

And the UN is paralyzed by the Russians and the Chinese who also often "do harm" but are (as per the USA) too "big" to smack eh.

Who's going to arrest Assad and take him to The Hague? If anyone I guess it'd have to be one's uh "Uncle Sammy"? As far as ratifying conventions re the International Court of Justice I'm all for it but that isn't going anywhere in the present congress -- one would need FIRST elect a congress dominated by Democrats.

I don't know what else to "do" but wring hands and wait for the next chemical bomb or whatever to "drop." True in this case MOST Americans probably don't care that much if "WE" aren't "in it"; they are "against the war" which is somewhat ironic for me -- when I'M against wars "EVERYBODY" is for them and when I'M for -- well you see what I mean.

There was a photo in the Arizona Republic (the "statewide" newspaper as per Wisconsin's Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel say) of John McCain at a "town meeting" in Phoenix standing beside a protestor (both "elderly") holding up a sign "DON'T ATTACK SYRIA!" That guy with the sign could have been me ten years ago with "IRAQ" instead eh. (The protestor by the way looks "determined"; McCain looks as if he's straining to maintain his known "volatility" but "winning.")

I suppose I should remove all my old "anti war" stickers from my car's bumper but they're fading away anyway.

I'm only struck by the incongruity of the Republican response but then I suppose they'd feel the same way about Democrats though Obama's heavy lifting involves getting those Demo votes in congress as well. I wonder if they'll turn him down which will not "destroy" his presidency but create some kind of "crisis" -- especially if he okays the attack after all. Rand Paul, you can be sure, will initiate an impeachment though yes of course he'll need find someone in the house to actually "do it"; somehow I think he will?

This is too long I realize but this is "new" to me -- at least not since I defended Reagan re "the contra war" and now I think I was wrong about that so why should I be "right" about this? I believe I am however because I don't think Assad gives a damn about how many "peons" die as long as he remains "in charge." And if he can gas as many as he wants while the rest of "US" argue about "diplomacy" I think he has "the last laugh" because as long as he has his Russian and Chinese "protectors" he's "in like Flynn." And smug about it too...

#212: Putting aside the fact that international law isn't really law and so it cannot place a duty on its subjects,

A treaty should be every bit as binding as a law approved by the same people.

2> "A treaty should be every bit as binding as a law..."

Yes. What treaty are you alluding to?

The US hasn't accepted the jurisdiction of the court at The Hague which is what Harsch was alluding to; consequently it isn't "required" to observe its "rules."

As for the United Nations it has no overriding "power"; the Russians and the Chinese have a veto (as does the US of course) in the security council so "nothing" gets done there if the Rs and the Cs don't want...

#2,

A treaty should be every bit as binding as a law approved by the same people.

Treaties are as binding on the US government as statutes passed by the US government are on the American people. The difference doesn't lie in whether or not international law is binding, it lies in whether or not such laws are issued by a sovereign person or body of people with the authority and power to enforce them when they are broken. The answer for international law is no. Unlike domestic US law, there is no sovereign that has the authority and power to enforce international law when such laws are violated. As such, at its root international law is a gentlemen's agreement, not law.

That of course doesn't mean that there can't be consequences for violating international law, but such consequences are not, and in fact cannot, be doled out by a sovereign because the "international community" doesn't have one.

4> "The US hasn't accepted the jurisdiction of the court at The Hague which is what Harsch was alluding to; consequently it isn't "required" to observe its "rules.""

Of course. There's no treaty alluded to in 212, so my curiosity was what prosfilaes referred to, because it is also the case that Syria has not signed the UN Chemical Weapons Convention and so is not "required " to observe those "rules".

I'm confused as to what an intervention in Syria is supposed to accomplish. Is it to "punish" Assad for using gas on his citizens or is it to stop the civil war? Because those are two very different objectives.

If the intervention is to "punish" Assad, then a few cruise missiles would do, and it might not cost more than a couple of billion dollars, with no risk of casualties (on the side of the attackers- plenty of Syrians will die, but curiously that doesn't matter to interventionists). But the BEST case scenario is that it would dissuade Assad from using chemical weapons again (and I think that is optimistic); it would do nothing to end the civil war.

If the objective is to stop the civil war, without simply turning the country over to the Islamist, Al Qaeda-linked rebels who have vowed to kill every last Alawite and minority, that will take more than just a few cruise missiles or air strikes. It will require, probably, a full scale occupation, similar in size, scale and cost to Iraq. It will mean fighting not only Assad's forces, but also the Islamists. Not just in Syria, but also in Lebanon, where Hezbollah is based. It could easily spread to involve Israel and Jordan. Maybe even Turkey and Iraq. Can the U.S. afford to get involved in another war like that?

The European Union recently said they saw the evidence & believe sarin gas was used , some of the Arab states want retribution {and are willing to pay for it} so drone blast the brother of the leader of the old government who was rumored to of have ordered the strike according to intercepted emails. Take out some other sarin delivery systems while they are at it ....but NO boots on the ground for USA as they say. All those dead kids lined up like birds at opening day of dove season was sickening. IMOHO

8> "...so drone blast the brother of the leader..."

Syria has a good, integrated, air defense system fully capable of detecting and destroying slow-moving drones.

Many weapons systems, all mobile, can deliver chemical weapons and so are poor targets for cruise missiles. The chemical stockpiles are stationary but attacking them runs the risk of damaging security without obliterating the weapons, thus leaving the doors to the stockpiles open.

If someone thinks there's a good one-shot military option that would "punish and deter" the Assad regime, I'd sure like to hear what it is.

Maybe...Don't forget how powerful the government-media alliance can be.

http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/rep-grayson-syria-intelligence-being-

I'm not saying this means anything either:

http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/video-syrian-rebels-killing-soldiers-

5> The Supreme Court will honor an treaty that has been ratified by the Senate the same as a law passed by Congress. The question of who will enforce it is the same as who will enforce the President to enforce a law passed by Congress if he doesn't want to.

because it is also the case that Syria has not signed the UN Chemical Weapons Convention and so is not "required " to observe those "rules"

But Syria did sign the Geneva Protocol, which forbids the use of chemical weapons (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Protocol). So while they are no subject to the particular structures and regulations of the Chemical Weapons Convention, they are still required not abide by the Geneva Protocol's structures and regulations. (I'll leave out that, even if they hadn't signed it, the ban on chemical weapons has generally been understood to have become part of "customary international law.")

I expect that, discovering your facts are exactly wrong will lead you to reverse your opinion about the matter. I will await this.

The opponents to US action in Iraq in 2003 used the doctrine of imminent threat to justify the US not taking on Saddam Hussein. Basically saying Iraq posed no immediate threat to the US therefore not military action need be taken. Mr Obama and Mr Biden were both supporters of this doctrine at that time. Currently the administration has demonstrated no immediate threat exists to the US from Syria. No Syrian ICBMs pointed at the US, no Syrian Navy off our coasts. So we plan to attack what specifically in Syria?? to stop a non threat to the US. If we are to be the world's policeman, then be honest and dissolve the UN and say OK the US will deal with all aggression in the world. Of course that will mean we will have to expand our military to 80s Mr Reagan levels, something many of Mr Obama's supporters would be against. WMDs are an international problem, the UN is an international organization which has failed to stop a single conflict since its inception. Here is the UN's chance to finally do something. Good Luck!

>13 timspalding: I tried to find what you were alluding to and could not. Are you conflating posts? I found the latter third in Welch, post 4, but not that exact quote. Is it on the previous part of this thread?

Regarding chemical weapons, I think the treaties are nonsense. Chemical weapons are not, what?, good, in any case. Legal? If so, then 'legal' is not part of the argument. Not signing a treaty or signing a treaty seems irrelevant in the face of such atrocity. But at the same time, what about cluster bombs, arms dealing in general, cruise missiles, drones, and so on. What about nuclear weapons? As many have pointed out, something like 100,000 are already dead. It did not require chemical weapons to achieve this. What is horrific is war; what is disgusting is hypocrisy. When it comes to treaties, the US is one of the most grotesque violators of those it has signed, and also hypocritical regarding those it refuses to sign given the subsequent 'necessity' to behave in humane fashion. Remember the Contras.

'I expect that, discovering your facts are exactly wrong, will lead you to reverse your opinion about the matter. I will await this.' spalding, this is horribly condescending and seems to suggest that the issue is as simple as pen and ink. But I admit that I also have no idea who your are addressing. Maybe if I knew I would think otherwise.

15>"But I admit that I also have no idea who your are addressing. Maybe if I knew I would think otherwise."

The knee-jerk condescension targeted me at #6 which was a response to #4. I hope that clears that up for you, RickHarsch.

I don't get it either, but then, anything more subtle than "You're wrong, motherfucker!" gets easily lost around here.

Thanks, I went right by it. My response is that while chemical weapons are awful, the US has broken treaties habitually since it began signing them. I don't think anyone likes chemical weapons, but as the US has sanctioned them in the person of people like Rumsfeld, who is still overly influential, or nefariously influential, it mystifies me that anyone would argue that the US is the country to (try to) put a stop to their usage.

This (Pro and Con) is a good group in part because such people as Spalding do research for us and force us to confront various facts we may not otherwise have been aware of, but I am sure he is intelligent enough to know that the argument does not hinge on the breaking of a convention, that it is much more complicated no matter where you land on the issue. But though he is condescending at times, I should, fairly, admit that I surely am as well, and also tend to be abrasive (I guess).

17> "...My response is that while chemical weapons are awful..."

Yes they are, and Assad's military apparently used them. I'm as outraged by that as everyone else. But to turn that outrage into a desire to blow some stuff up to teach Assad a lesson, then to wrap it in a quickly intellectualized moral and legal framework so you can feel good about yourself for blowing that stuff up is pretty outrageous itself.

The U.S. shouldn't avoid trying to put a stop to their usage because of a lack of moral standing, but also shouldn't blow stuff up without international agreement and a complete understanding of the objectives, political and military, and an appreciation of the mayhem that could ensue.

And Mr. Spalding was not forcing anybody "to confront various facts we may not otherwise have been aware of", he was just being an asshat. But I'm sure he appreciates you defending him.

"chemical weapons are awful"

Yes, but how is 1,000 people killed by chemical weapons somehow more awful than 100,000 people killed by conventional weapons?

It sounds like Obama just wants to stop Assad from using chemical weapons. If Assad and the rebels go back to killing another 100,000 people with conventional weapons, he'll be fine with that.

Yes, but how is 1,000 people killed by chemical weapons somehow more awful than 100,000 people killed by conventional weapons?

There was a good piece in the NYT today on this.

A Weapon Seen as Too Horrible, Even in War by Steven Erlanger
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/07/world/middleeast/a-weapon-seen-as-too-horrible...

I'd be interested to hear what others think of it.

I certainly admit to being condescending there. But I find it an interesting test case. Most arguments are complex--lots of facts, lots of arguments, ideological backgrounds, etc. You can argue them, but you usually can't overturn them entirely. This one was based on a simple fact that is 180° wrong. One would expect discovery to prompt the author to say "In light of reversed facts, I reverse my view."

http://www.jewishideasdaily.com/5555/features/chemical-warfare-in-the-middle-eas...

Well... not too terrible, as long as the victims had no recourse; no way to retaliate, no public outrage.

12> If that is so what happened to the Geneva convention at Guatanamo?

See Wikipedia: Guantanamo Bay detention camp ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_detention_camp ) and Hamdan vs. Rumsfeld ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamdan_v._Rumsfeld ). There is much disagreement about the degree to which the individuals are subject to the convention, but federal courts have, in fact, upheld parts of the Geneva Convention as binding on the Federal Government's actions in Guantanamo.

>20 timspalding: I sure wish New York Times wasn't blocked here in China.

I know dying in a chemical attack is particularly gruesome, but there is no 'nice' way to kill others. Quite a few civilians and children have been killed by 'legal' conventional methods in this conflict. They have been crushed in buildings shelled by artillery. They've been shot by snipers in Damascus. Snipers who prefer to target children, by the way. 100,000 dead usually means 2-3 times that many wounded. Limbless or blinded or suffering in other ways. Not to mention hundreds of thousands of homeless refugees.

The air strikes Obama wants won't stop the slaughter. They aren't meant to. They are just to stop the use of poison gas (hopefully). So both sides can get back to killing and maiming each other the old fashioned way, with 'conventional' weapons.

The appeal of the air strikes is they are relatively cheap (only a few billion dollars) and low risk for the attacking country. And satellite images of air strikes look cool on the evening news. Like a video game, or something.

To stop the civil war, on the other hand, would be costly and dangerous. It would require hundreds of billions of dollars, tens of thousands of 'boots on the ground' and probably the loss of thousands of American and allied soldiers' lives. It would require years of commitment with a high chance of ultimate failure and the risk of spreading war to neighbouring countries. A second Iraq, in other words. Nobody wants that.

We have a new poster who said Spalding was BEING an asshat. Can we give him a break here. After all, he has the right to change it to Spalding's post was being an asshat.

And Doctor Spalding: 'I certainly admit to being condescending there. But I find it an interesting test case. Most arguments are complex--lots of facts, lots of arguments, ideological backgrounds, etc. You can argue them, but you usually can't overturn them entirely. This one was based on a simple fact that is 180° wrong. One would expect discovery to prompt the author to say "In light of reversed facts, I reverse my view."'

You're digging your grave here. Yes I was being condescending and let me explain precisely how much I condescended to this lab animal. The argument, if indeed based on a simple fact, which i think it was not (space considerations, lobbing out a point), does not ipso spaldo lead to your in light of reversed fact, sir, I doff, rather to further waves of argument. Would you settle for a 'Got me there, big guy?'

#24: The big points of the NYT article seem to be that (1) the survivors of WWI really hated chemical weapons, despite the wide array of weapons used in WWI and (2) between 1925 and 1980, use of chemical weapons was rare and clandestine; Iraq got away with it (as no one cared about Iran) until they used them on civilian Kurdish populations but the reaction stopped them in the future and (3) thus Syria is really crossing some major well-established lines here.

Flashback to First World Wars trenches, Wilfred Owens will tell you.

Read:

www.poetryfoundation.org/poem/175898

There are no fair rules in modern warfare as early as 1WW. Mankind have no respect for one and another. Greed for political power is EVIL.

Pray that there will be no wars , and for peace in this world.

Not this again.

www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2459.htm

27 Thanks for the summary. I suppose where I would agree is that while the occasional chemical attack may not be a threat to the planet, there IS a fear that if it should become acceptable, the use of nuclear weapons is more likely. So even if the 'line' drawn between chemical weapons and--oh, by the way, is napalm not chemical?--other nasty killtoys is not terribly logical (what do victims think of cluster bombs? particularly nasty), if no lines are drawn nuclear warfare is likely inevitable.

28 Strongly agree. Couldn't get the article to come up, the latter one.

Try to type the website's address manually .

Still didn't work (I'm in Slovenia, if that matters...)

If this report is true, the threat of force has had a dramatic effect.

Agence France-Presse
@ AFP
BREAKING Russia calls on Syria to hand over and then destroy chemical weapons, hopes for 'quick, positive' Syria response: Lavrov

Boston Globe http://www.boston.com/news/world/europe/2013/09/09/russia-syria-push-for-chemica...

The latest development on the crisis is good news to avert any potential wars.

Messase 32:

News Blackout.

33 Whether it was the threat or not, I don't care. It would be a very smart move on the part of Russia and I don't know why it is so surprising. But I am surprised.
Let's hope we don't subsequently have a Hans Blixkrieg.

13>"But Syria did sign the Geneva Protocol,..."

The Geneva Protocol applies to the use of chemical weapons in international warfare and Syria's conflict is internal. The CWC prohibits everything about chemical weapons and Syria never signed it. Granted the use of chemical weapons violates international norms -- you might have noticed the mockery in my repeating the of quotes used in the post I referenced if you hadn't been in such a hurry -- but that doesn't change those facts. I stand by what I said, including references to asshattery.

In defense of the term asshattery. It is in the 'Urban Dictionary', meaning one who has his head up his ass. It is reminiscent of many posts by StormRaven that are generally not flagged. But what it really means is that the poster, the accused asshat, is too absorbed in his own beliefs or thoughts to read carefully, and too proud of his own research to complete it. Without the repeated condescension I would argue that the term would not apply. However, perhaps it does, and the condescender, if I may condescend to say so, could learn from post 37 that this is argument and not sports, time does not run out and there are no last second winning scores.

So...back to the topic at hand -- this is an article positing that Obama has no intention of striking Syria.

http://www.policymic.com/articles/62177/you-think-obama-wants-to-strike-syria-yo...

I don't know. I still have no opinion, although I've surely read enough articles in the past few days to have done so. But this is an interesting take on the whole mess.

>39 RidgewayGirl:

Somebody in one of the posts alluded to the theory that Obama did not really want to strike. Can't find it now.
Makes sense, made sense to me when they first posted the idea. Also makes the Right look foolish again. If Russia were to do something as they've threatened, Obama comes out looking pretty good. He doesn't fit the profile of a "war monger" and Kerry isn't either.
Would also accomplish the diminishment of the chatter coming from the Right about "doing" something about the Middle East. Obviously a majority does not want to do ANYTHING about the Middle East. Except McCain of course.

33> "If this report is true, the threat of force has had a dramatic effect."

The Washington Post expands (while repeating that this was in response to the threat of US attack): "{Russian Foreign Minister}Lavrov also called on Syria to sign and ratify the Convention on Chemical Weapons, which outlaws the production, stockpiling and use of chemical weapons."

Definitively a positive development (not so much over the short term for Syrian civilians, but still...), though arguments will arise quickly that it's all a ruse. Kerry dismissed the idea, after presenting it, a few hours before the Russia/Syria announcement.

38>"... I would argue that the term would not apply..."

I accept you as referee of the asshateriness of it all.

I believe Professor Doctor Spalding must answer, but we cannot assume he is on line. If you are out there, on here, sir, we await your answer, astute, acerbic, stupid, disembowelling, Marxian, as the case may be.

Trappist nuns in Syria plead for the country not to be bombed:

The problem is that it has become too easy to pass lies off as noble gestures, to pass ruthless self-interest off as a search for justice, to pass the need to appear strong and to wield power off as a “moral responsibility not to look away…”

A Letter from Trappist Nuns in Syria

#9 If someone thinks there's a good one-shot military option that would "punish and deter" the Assad regime, I'd sure like to hear what it is.

Loose lips sink ships sailor! ;-) I don't anyone will be forthcoming on detailed plans prior to any action.

Obama's soliciting popular opinion and international co operation has seemingly resulted in a tentative agreement to remove chemical weapons from Syria. Was this by design or serendipitous?, in any event I agree with John Kerry of the state departments attitude of believe it when we see it. Afterwards if the person{s} responsible for ordering the chemical attack are identified I still say we give them a drone enema when they go out to review the troops.

45 Right, there's a terrific plan, if only no one tips their hand.

Oh, and John Kerry, next fucking Nobel Peace Prize winner.

http://world.time.com/2013/09/05/at-the-g20-obamas-syria-efforts-take-a-hit-as-p...

Wouldn't that be Putin for the Nobel Prize?

45>"anyone will be forthcoming on detailed plans prior to any action."

Well, yes, I wouldn't expect a briefing on the operation plan from the military, but I'm perplexed (and I could really just be missing it) by the absence of speculation from citizen-interventionists on what actually could be done. Blow stuff up, of course, the U.S. Navy is pretty good at that, but what? And how do you decide when you've blown enough stuff up to make your point?

Although I'm not opposed to military intervention in principle, here I don't see any realistic objectives that could be achieved without high risk of going haywire. Invoking the "Drone Enema Protocol" only works in the absence of air-defense systems, but it sounds really tough.

But then, events have overtaken me, and the Kerry/Putin/Assad "Let's not start another war just yet" initiative deserves the attention now.

If someone thinks there's a good one-shot military option that would "punish and deter" the Assad regime, I'd sure like to hear what it is.

Assad is a rational man. If he fears what the US will do more than he fears the military gain to be had, he will hold off doing it. Quite frankly, he's probably already deterred. As with Hussein and Halabja, which was the last such attack, the reaction just isn't worth it. Assad probably realizes this is even more so now, because Halabja took a while to come out, whereas now such an attack is on YouTube rather quickly. If Assad made another big chemical attack now or in the near term it would only prove Obama right, and increase the likelihood or severity of action of against him. He'll stop at nothing to retain power, but he's a rational man.

This being the case, we're mostly talking about punishment as a way of compelling Syrian action in the farther future, deterring others from future use of chemical weapons and generally making it clear that when the US says something is a red line, we mean what we say. Credibility is an overall US goal, of course, but Iran is the primary subject of worry. The US has said that it will do what it needs to do to make sure Iran doesn't get the bomb. We've as much as used the words that this is a red line for us. We'd like to convince Iran we actually mean what we say since, if they take us at our word, we don't have to choose between a horrible war and a decline in credibility, trust and safety. Personally, I don't think we do mean what we say. Iran's going to get the bomb and we're not going to be able to do a damn thing about it. One hopes that, when that happens, we remember the steps that led the world's greatest superpower to a place where its threats against nasty and unloved dictatorships, and promises to its allies, are completely vain.

It's difficult to be rational when your options are 'Do this and we kill you' vs. 'Don't do this, and they kill you'.

> 50 Sanctions are crippling Iran, while aid is propping Israel. Israel has about 200 nuclear weapons, Iran may be trying to get one. And of course we know why Iran is the US' enemy--because a loved non-dictatorship was turned by the US into an unloved dictatorship.

>50 timspalding: The 'bomb Syria to scare Iran' policy (if that's what it is) reminds me of one of the justifications cited for the nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki: it wasn't actually about Japan (which was already all but defeated), it was about showing the Russians that the U.S. had the bomb and they weren't afraid to use it. Of course, it was kinda hard on the residents of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Well, Putin's proposal for Syria to destroy all its chemical weapons is wonderful, if it's accepted and implemented. It protects the Syrian people from the threat of gas attacks by their own government and missile strikes by the Americans, and it removes the stock piles so they don't fall into the hands of Hezbollah or Al Qaeda. Everyone wins! (Except, perhaps, John McCain...)

Now if everyone could just agree to a peace settlement, maybe Syria could end its civil war.

But gosh, Madpoet, what about all the lost face.

1 + 1 = 2

A = A!

;)

Loose lips sink ships sailor! ;-)

Empty vessels make most sound.

Is the desired outcome to prevent the Syrians from killing everyone of themselves like the story of the Jews and the Romans.

" The Story of the Jews and the Romans " as in the biblical times. Caught in limbo?

Pontius Pilate was the Roman governor of Judea during the existence of earthly Jesus Christ. Pilate was sincerely interested in Jewish culture and did his best to prevent unnecessary violence. To please the Jews in the highest standing, was he caught in the dilemma?

Notice the analogy now in this current issue.

A potential war, where there are no losers or winners. Everyone are losers, innocent civilian lives and young soldiers on both sides lost. Ask ourselves, is this necessary?

#56: A = A! ⇒ A = 1.

A new formula of " logical thinking'' of strategic reasoning !!!

War = Taxpayer monies = Profits/Wealth (for weaponry mongers/manufacturers) =

Death(Innocent Lives)

This is reality. Cruel world.

>54 RickHarsch: But gosh, Madpoet, what about all the lost face.

Let Kerry and Putin share a Nobel Peace Prize. That ought to give them plenty of face. Obama already has one (for what, I couldn't tell you. Getting elected?)

>60 razzamajazz: Surprisingly, though, military leaders- actual officers- are often not hawkish. You see, when there's a war you have to actually use your tanks and planes and missiles, etc., and you lose a lot of them. And there's no guarantee all those wonderful toys will be replaced. Kind of spoils the fun.

Nominate Kerry and Putin for Nobel Peace Prize 2014/??? How Obama does it? Anybody knows.

No, give the award to al- Assad if he stopped the killings..Tell him about this proposal.

Ha ! Ha! Ha!

Who really profits in the Syrian Civil War 2013?

Read this:

http://www.centives.net

Search: the-Syrian Civil War To Market Weaponry

or

www.centives.net/S/?s=The+Syrian+Civil+War+To+Market+Weaponry

Well, there's nothing like a war to advertise new weapons technology. I wonder how many exocet missiles France sold after the Falkland Islands War?

The big Guns buying big war toys.

" The Story of the Jews and the Romans " as in the biblical times. Caught in limbo?

No. There's a movie I remember from childhood where at the end the Jews kill themselves, all, everyone.

::I had to hop from browser to browser to post this.
::Random bug I suppose or thing in the middle blocking.

Masada

The movie's title is "Monty Python's Life of Brian" a parodied(comedy) about the Messiah.In the end of the movie, the Jewish freedom fighters committed suicides.

Someone should do a stage play of the 100k plus 1% dead by gas. Represent their feelings as this war wears on. The twist in the plot has the main character who thinks he is not dead but is. Kind of six sense like.

Contact, Film Producer

Mel Brooks

He specialized on parodies-movies.

Is Monty Python Flying Circus, a British comedy group still exists today? They made good satires and parodies in the later years of 20th Century.

That circus done crashed. But a few are alive and brainy.

Well right now the Obama administration is in a sort of "limbo"; it has been snookered by the British AND the Russians, i. e., Obama became intimidated by the parliament's failure to support Cameron and now he's been stifled by the Russkies so adeptly picking up on Kerry's chance scoff as per how Assad can get out of his "mess."

However this also provided Obama a way out too as he was bound to lose any vote in the congress -- the house certainly and the senate likely -- because the public is so uh "gun shy" re the Ten Year WarS that it's sort of like the 1930s left trying to get Roosevelt to help the Spanish republic -- tain't none of our business Frankie and FDR played it therefore in a low key.

The irony is rather huge -- it also reminds me of Woodrow Wilson's failure to get the Republican senate (it hated him as much as the Repub house hates Obama) to ratify the Versailles treaty and the US entry into the League of Nations.

Wilson has been one of our most interesting presidents; his reputation has deteriorated (but it's rebounding) yet his "legacy" as they say is huge, meaning that the moralistic US role as "police of the world" is from this son of a preacher man and the most professional "amateur" of prezes (one can be an academic and actually KNOW something!) and that has remained as part of American policies no matter how distorted by its otherwise "business" interests eh.

Obama may wish to "borrow" my video of Darryl F. Zanuck's 1944 "big" technicolor production "Wilson" with a British actor (would WW have approved?) Alexander Knox (later "Control" in the BBC Alec Guinness version of "Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy") as "Thomas Woodrow." The hatred in Cedric Hardwicke's eyes (ANOTHER Brit actor!) playing Henry Cabot Lodge is what the O could see in any tea bagger's face hmm.

I STILL support the prez on this but I think he's flummoxed; the public plus the Republicans plus the Russians have made him a "fool" for -- well indeed what? Are "we" crusading against "chemicals" alone or against Assad? What exactly are we "bombing," if ever now, and can we know where anymore?

I still think Obama ought to have "done it" and THEN "said it"; but he's "stuck," having invited ALL his "enemies" to apply super glue to the soles of his shoes and then uh taken his "stand"...

#73 "I still think Obama ought to have "done it" and THEN "said it"; but he's "stuck," having invited ALL his "enemies" to apply super glue to the soles of his shoes and then uh taken his "stand".

Really, behavior psychology would dictate that the best way to modify behavior is to apply a "negative reinforcement" a quickly as possible {zillion charts show time is very important in effectiveness}. The way things have worked out, without punitive strikes, makes me think either there is a lot stuff going on behind the scenes prompted by people much smarter than me or a much better solution just fell into the administration's lap. I hope it all works out and Kerry is able to keep up with the vodka drinking in Switzerland or where ever he is flying to meet with his Russian counterpart.

I believe that either Obama decides as per McCain to now "take out" Assad in the manner that Gaddafi was or "we" are tempting an "Operation Desert Farce."

I think the Russians have let out the string and "we" are following it to well whenever and wherever.

At the same time I believe the American public is both hostile to ANY "new" war no matter the assurances (long time in Troy eh Ulysses?) AND rather indifferent to what happens to "Arabs" anywhere...

>70 vy0123: I saw an excellent political cartoon on the subject. Obama was looking down at a single corpse, representing the 1,400 who died of poison gas, saying, "This is terrible! We must go to war!" While behind him, ignored, was a towering pile of corpses, representing the 100,000+ who died of 'conventional' weapons.

From Obama's Nobel Peace Prize speech:

"We must begin by acknowledging the hard truth: We will not eradicate violent conflict in our lifetimes. There will be times when nations -- acting individually or in concert -- will find the use of force not only necessary but morally justified."

"To begin with, I believe that all nations -- strong and weak alike -- must adhere to standards that govern the use of force. I -- like any head of state -- reserve the right to act unilaterally if necessary to defend my nation. Nevertheless, I am convinced that adhering to standards, international standards, strengthens those who do, and isolates and weakens those who don't."

"I believe that force can be justified on humanitarian grounds, as it was in the Balkans, or in other places that have been scarred by war. Inaction tears at our conscience and can lead to more costly intervention later. That's why all responsible nations must embrace the role that militaries with a clear mandate can play to keep the peace."

"First, in dealing with those nations that break rules and laws, I believe that we must develop alternatives to violence that are tough enough to actually change behavior -- for if we want a lasting peace, then the words of the international community must mean something. Those regimes that break the rules must be held accountable. Sanctions must exact a real price. Intransigence must be met with increased pressure -- and such pressure exists only when the world stands together as one."

"The same principle applies to those who violate international laws by brutalizing their own people. When there is genocide in Darfur, systematic rape in Congo, repression in Burma -- there must be consequences. Yes, there will be engagement; yes, there will be diplomacy -- but there must be consequences when those things fail. And the closer we stand together, the less likely we will be faced with the choice between armed intervention and complicity in oppression." http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-acceptance-nobel-pe...

How happens to United Nations? Is the organization doing good enough and exert by

constitutional rules to be "the policeman" to maintain law and order on our planet, Earth?

I can make no sense of your last paragraph.

Can United Nations exert further actions to maintain constant normalcy - peace and order that are much sought in the world?

I have put my previous question in the wrong perspective , and now deleted that statement.

With Bashar al-Assad publicly committed to signing the CWC (Al Jazeera), the legal justification for military action against his regime seems to be gone. Put another way, much of the deterrence you'd hope to achieve from military action is already accomplished. I can't tell, though, if the Assad regime has acquiesced to or out-maneuvered the Obama administration.

Could it possibly be a win for all sides? Syria doesn't get bombed by outsiders, the US had it's goal of getting Assad not to use chemical weapons, the UN looks effective and Russia gets to play the diplomat. I don't think that it could have ended better, as long as those weapons are handed over.

if this proceeds as planned, the only victim is the US liberal who makes the mistake of turning on Fox.

Not sure that protecting delicate sensibilities is worth the bombing of another country.

Of course not.

Ha! I knew it was all part of a cunning plan!

http://www.freewoodpost.com/2013/09/12/obama-reverse-psychology/

Well I propose that we have now the Laurel and Hardy "solution," i. e., "Here's ANOTHER FINE MESS you got me into!" and apparently with a bit of (not so) "off hand" magic Kerry plus Putin plus Lavrov have pulled the O's proverbial chestnuts from the "fire" of American public opinion?

So now the weapons inspectors descend into the civil war state in which they are supposed to find said chemicals and Assad is to deliver them up for destruction by oh mid 2014. In the meantime the US is supposed to (at last!) render unto "Caesar" what Caesar REALLY wants which is more and better weaponry (no "chemistry" of course!) with which to kill Assad's folks. What should NOT happen it seems is that said inspectors have "some terrible accident" also to be blamed on BOTH protagonists.

Assad is to "cooperate" while the US is in the process of "subverting" his rule.

The rebels are supposed to "cooperate" while Assad is treated as a "legitimate" government by all concerned, including the UN.

Winners (by the napes of their necks): Barack Obama, John Kerry

Losers: the rebels, John McCain

BIG Winners: Vlad (the Impaler) Putin, the American people who never wanted this "strike"

So does this mean that the NEXT Nobel peace prize goes toooooooooooooooooo -- Vladie?!!!...

#87 I think the losers are the people of Syria still. As others have posted above all ages, classes and genders of people in Syria are being horrendously killed and maimed by "conventional" means. Maybe once an international zone is established to vacate the gases they will be able to expand that zone into a cease fire. The expanding pile of rubble that is becoming Syria must be less attractive to "rule".

It's always the innocent who suffer...

a perspective on bombing Syria as an option (Bill Maher)

http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/maher-we-need-debate-why-were-always...

I don't know about "killing Bob" but I wouldn't mind if Bashar had "some terrible accident"...

don't forget these folks have cadre cohorts

"These folks"? Who are "they"? What do you mean "cadre cohorts"?...

Assad is no different from Bush, who had his Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Rice, that UN asshole...Bolton, yes...

>94 RickHarsch:
Yeah but........we are "US" they are "THEM" and we are "RIGHT" while clearly they are "WRONG"

>90 RickHarsch: Thanks for that, Rick! I'm not always a fan of Maher, but he hit the nail on the head on that one.

I disliked Bolton, the ANTI UN "ambassador" and Rumsfeld fucked up the Iraq war with his on the cheap "Shock & Awe" but then as per Obama it was a "dumb war" at that...

Oh, Bolton was an open joke. Bush felt only contempt for the UN and so sent a guy he liked to go shooting with (no one liked to go shooting with Cheney). I saw an interview with Bolton in which he said that the president is only obligated to serve those who voted for him and contributed to his campaign. I suspect Bush agreed, but had the vestigial awareness that he shouldn't say that in public.

The vestigial awareness to go along with the vestigial tail.

#98: I saw an interview with Bolton in which he said that the president is only obligated to serve those who voted for him and contributed to his campaign. I suspect Bush agreed, but had the vestigial awareness that he shouldn't say that in public.

Ick. So Bolton didn't have wit to even play the public servant? I know an elected politician is always going to have to reward those who put him there to some extent, but they should make some gesture towards serving the whole public. To say it out loud and act like it's the right thing? That's a new low.

100
A lot of new lows after the year 2000. Money and politics were always bed partners, however, we crossed so many lines that we actually sent young soldiers off to fight for big business interests. First time we an all volunteer army and we elected a bunch of oil men to be our leaders. Bolton fits right in the "either for us or for the terrorist" crowd.

Who will clear the mess ? Mr. Assad said so.

http://www.meclatchyde.com/2013/09/18/v-print/202553/syrias-says-his-agreement.h...

This is what we call the game of world politics. Any wishful solutions to the crisis?

#101: Some Marines in the 1930s complained that they were practically on the payroll of the United Fruit Company. Nothing's new under the sun.

>100 prosfilaes: Not only did Bolton say it aloud, he said it on The Daily Show. He also claimed that Lincoln never allowed political opponents into his cabinet; a claim that Steward had Doris Kearns Goodwin on the next night to refute.

Here's the clip. Bolton starts going off script at the four minute mark and the comment I referred to happens at the 5:15 mark.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-march-20-2007/john-bolton

Thanks RG. Stewart was at his best.

I love the internet. Politicians can't later deny their own words. Someone recorded it and put it up on YouTube.

Put on youtube despite the painful fact that to watch it you have to LOOK at Bolton.

Oh, c'mon. That's an impressive 'stache.

Yes, if you are violently and activistically anti-stache

Chuck Hagel will never have lunch at a Lincoln day dinner again!...

Syrian Organizations and Human Rights Advocates Call for the Establishment of an Exceptional Chemical Weapons Tribunal to Prosecute Perpetrators of Chemical Weapons Use
Syrian Civil Defense: the white Helmets | 30 November 2023

...In Syria, recourse to the International Criminal Court (“ICC”), the usual avenue that can look into such crimes, was blocked by a double veto in the UN Security Council in 2014, and calls for accountability by victims and the international community, including in UN Security Council resolutions 2118, 2209, 2235, 2314, 2319, and UN General Assembly resolutions 68/182, 70/41, 71/69, 72/43, 73/45, 73/182, 74/40, 74/169, 75/193, 76/29 and 76/228, remain unanswered.

This deadlock and continued impunity for chemical attacks undermines the absolute prohibition of chemical weapons and the deterrent effect of accountability, and makes the case for an international tribunal on chemical weapons.

Endorsed by over 15 organizations, the public call from Syrian groups follows almost two years of international expert consultations and multilateral and bilateral discussions with States, and is based on in-depth analysis of legal, political and technical considerations.

The proposed exceptional tribunal will consider cases for all uses of chemical weapons, for Syria and for any case that falls outside of the International Criminal Court, due to the political deadlock that currently prevents the court from acting. The proposed tribunal would be complimentary to existing international bodies, including the ICC and would be structured such that it only becomes operational when ICC jurisdiction is blocked.

This public call for accountability is a call from the victims of chemical attacks, who suffered the horrific consequences of CW, and their families. The White Helmets supports this call to protect the norm on the prohibition of chemical weapons and bring those responsible to account for their crimes. Together, for a world free of chemical weapons.

https://www.syriacivildefence.org/en/latest/statements/syrian-organizations-and-...