Syria

[BrianFromWA]

Brian,
Now you ask who the UN is going to send in to arrest Assad. Of course it would be us. It would be the UN sending us in, not Obama or some other president of the USA.

It brings up a couple of points. I'm not arguing one way or the other, but it seems disingenuous for the anti-war crowd in Hollywood to say that we shouldn't have any boots on ground in Syria and then just say the UN should arrest Assad and try him for war crimes. As you pointed out, US troops would be the ones doing the arresting. Technically, all we were supposed to do in Iraq was arrest Saddam and confiscate his WMDs...as he was already in violation of multiple UN resolutions. Unfortunately, sectarian insurgents didn't let go that easily, and we were in a shooting war for 6 more years. I imagine that that would be the best case if we went in to Syria (UN-backed or not) to arrest Assad and confiscate his WMDs. The worst would be somewhere on the spectrum between Beirut 1983 and the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Article IV of the Constitution reads, in part:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land;

So we can and must do our duty to fulfill those treaties such as NATO and with the UN.

I know NATO much better than the UN, having operated under it a couple times (once in a shooting war in Libya, once in a shooting war here in Afghanistan). Due to that, I don't know what responsibility or requirements (or treaties, if you prefer) that we have to the UN that, say, Russia or Tonga don't. And I'm pretty sure Russia's not sending troops in to remove Assad for war crimes, UN resolution or not.

What, exactly, is the C-in-C's duty to the UN? EVEN IF they come out with a "Arrest Assad for war crimes" Resolution, who are they to tell the US Military (by telling it's C-in-C) that they have to go arrest someone in another country?

 

[Denny Crane]

I think the concept of arresting a nation's leader without troops on the ground is an impossibility. If France sends in troops on the UN's behalf and arrests him, they wouldn't be US troops (duh).

This CBS News article talks about UN Chapter 7:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162...military-force-fails-in-u.n-security-council/

Chapter 7 allows the use of international armed force to back up U.N. decisions.

http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter7.shtml

Article 41

The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations.

Article 43

1. All Members of the United Nations, in order to contribute to the maintenance of international peace and security, undertake to make available to the Security Council, on its call and in accordance with a special agreement or agreements, armed forces, assistance, and facilities, including rights of passage, necessary for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security.

2. Such agreement or agreements shall govern the numbers and types of forces, their degree of readiness and general location, and the nature of the facilities and assistance to be provided.

3. The agreement or agreements shall be negotiated as soon as possible on the initiative of the Security Council. They shall be concluded between the Security Council and Members or between the Security Council and groups of Members and shall be subject to ratification by the signatory states in accordance with their respective constitutional processes.

(Lots more at the 2nd link)

 

[KingSpeed]

Great reading all your posts. I don't know what position to take but I lean towards "do nothing." My brother who is a Commander in the Navy and is actually supposed to go to Beirut (Syria's neighbor) for work IN TWO WEEKS says that he is against bombing Syria. My husband who follows everything more closely than I do thinks we should make a surgical attack to take away their ability to make the chemical weapons.

 

[jlprk]

Great reading all your posts. I don't know what position to take but I lean towards "do nothing." My brother who is a Commander in the Navy and is actually supposed to go to Beirut (Syria's neighbor) for work IN TWO WEEKS says that he is against bombing Syria. My husband who follows everything more closely than I do thinks we should make a surgical attack to take away their ability to make the chemical weapons.

You need a different crowd around you. It has been very stupid, not great, reading on all these posts.

Assad is far more popular than Obama. Arresting him over a false flag attack doesn't fly. The hypocrisy of conservatives, to switch sides to anti-war, while writing an article accusing liberals of hypocrisy, when most liberals like Asner oppose the Democratic president, when most conservatives backed Bush, is hypocrisy squared.

 

[MarAzul]

I think this is a proxy war between the Shite lead by Iran and the Sunni lead by Riyad. A large segment of the population is Christian, Easter Orthodox and Asaad is protective of them as is Putin. His interest seem to be much stronger than ours since he has the same problems just North of there.

The conflict in Syria seems to be the rebels want to make the area Sunni. In direct response to your question, I don't know! Does Barrak favor Shite or Sunni? He bowed deeply to the Saudi King if that is any clue. Remember, he doesn't want to take Assad out, just to the woodshed.

But it sure seem this red line save face is a crock. If that is all there is to it
why doesn't Barrack use his super diplomacy skills and ask Putin to take control of the cache in Syria. Shazam! World saved!

I guess Barrack didn't ask Putin but Shazam! At least Barrack won't be sending our warriors out again. I think that is a very positive end result

 

[PapaG]

So, are we just supposed to take Syria's word that they are handing over all over their WMDs? Seems foolish to me.

Obama - "We're going to bomb the shit out of you".

Assad - "No, wait, we'll hand over our weapons (heh heh)".

Obama - "A diplomatic solution".

Why would a man who allegedly gassed thousands of people just give up all of those weapons? What a stupid premise.

 

[Denny Crane]

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2013/09/gaffe-heard-round-world/69205/

Hillary '16

 

[jlprk]

So, are we just supposed to take Syria's word that they are handing over all over their WMDs? Seems foolish to me.

Obama - "We're going to bomb the shit out of you".

Assad - "No, wait, we'll hand over our weapons (heh heh)".

Obama - "A diplomatic solution".

Why would a man who allegedly gassed thousands of people just give up all of those weapons? What a stupid premise.

You're right, your premise is stupid as usual. Had you read even one article, you'd know that Syria will sign a treaty allowing for thorough immediate searches by inspectors all over Syria.

 

[jlprk]

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/201...nt-continued-in-iraq-with-surprising-results/

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...d-to-100000-deaths-confesses-all-7606236.html

 

[PapaG]

You're right, your premise is stupid as usual. Had you read even one article, you'd know that Syria will sign a treaty allowing for thorough immediate searches by inspectors all over Syria.

They are 'crafting a plan', with China and Russia (who both supply arms to Assad) running the show.

LOL

 

[Nikolokolus]

Great reading all your posts. I don't know what position to take but I lean towards "do nothing." My brother who is a Commander in the Navy and is actually supposed to go to Beirut (Syria's neighbor) for work IN TWO WEEKS says that he is against bombing Syria. My husband who follows everything more closely than I do thinks we should make a surgical attack to take away their ability to make the chemical weapons.

That works in video games, in real life it doesn't work like that.

 

[Nikolokolus]

http://projects.nytimes.com/live-dashboard/syria#sha=a87302193

The Italian war correspondent Domenico Quirico, who reported sympathetically on the uprising in Syria before being taken hostage in April by rebel fighters, told reporters on Monday after his release that two years of bloody, armed conflict had changed the nature of the rebellion. “I was a hostage in Syria, betrayed by the revolution that no longer exists and has become fanaticism and the work of bandits,” he said.

[...]

As the Belgian newspaper Le Soir reported, Mr. Piccinin said in a television interview on Monday, after he too returned home, that “it was not the government of Bashar al-Assad that used sarin or some other gas during combat in the Damascus suburbs” last month. According to Mr. Piccinin — who described himself as a previously “fierce supporter of the Free Syrian Army in their just struggle for democracy” — at one stage during their captivity, he and Mr. Quirico overheard rebels saying that the deadly gas attacks last month had been carried out by anti-Assad forces to frame the government and provoke intervention.

Mr. Quirico confirmed the incident but disagreed sharply with Mr. Piccinin on what it meant. “We heard some people we didn’t know talking through a half-closed door,” he said. “It’s impossible to know whether what was said was based on real fact or just hearsay.” According to La Stampa, Mr. Quirico called it “madness” to say that the overheard conversation was definitive proof of a rebel plot.

Just something to chew on.

 

[maxiep]

I just watched the speech. What was the point of it? A history lesson? Mostly it was our President letting us know how noble and smart he is. I always enjoy Stephen Green's take. http://pjmedia.com/vodkapundit/2013/09/10/drunkblogging-tsyria/

 

[The_Lillard_King]

Jeff Merkley's public response to the issue:

“I share the President’s deep passion that the use of chemical weapons is unacceptable. The United States must not ignore Syria’s egregious crime against its citizens.
“Indeed, America should bring the world together to condemn and penalize Syria for this action. Such an effort, however, is best pursued through international negotiation and diplomacy. I’m encouraged that the U.S. and other nations are now pursuing just such an international diplomatic strategy for ending Syrian access to chemical weapons. Over the coming days we will see if the Syrians and Russians can be full participants in a timely and verifiable intervention to accomplish this important and significant goal.”

 

[Denny Crane]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denis_McDonough

This guy is Obama's new Chief of Staff. His resume is foreign policy. Looks like zero domestic policy experience or interest.

The chief of staff has this very important role:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_House_Chief_of_Staff

"Negotiate with Congress, other members of the executive branch, and extragovernmental political groups to implement the President's agenda"

He's not quite Dick Cheney, but he's the guy you'd pick if your 2nd term agenda is war.

 

[maxiep]

Just to give people an idea of how badly the Obama Administration effed up the messaging, check out this video montage

[video=youtube;clcl0VZhl24]

Their own words show how much they're trying to spin their way out of this situation.

 

[maxiep]

Even the AP is going after him

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/fact-check-obamas-syria-case-still-lacks-proof

 

[maxiep]

Jen Rubin's take (she supports the Obama position that a military strike needs to occur)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...llogical-argument-from-a-paralyzed-president/

 

[BlazerCaravan]

He's not quite Dick Cheney, but he's the guy you'd pick if your 2nd term agenda is war.

The only way the president makes war his agenda is if his corporate sponsors want it. So to me the question is, "who wants war and why?"

 

[maxiep]

The only way the president makes war his agenda is if his corporate sponsors want it. So to me the question is, "who wants war and why?"

President Obama doesn't want war. He wants to cover his ass from his undisciplined and stupid off the cuff pronouncement. He doesn't care about the efficacy of his response, only that he responds. He misspoke and painted himself into a corner. Then Kerry painted the walls behind him with the only exit getting down on his knees and blowing Putin.

Syria has been nothing short of a national humiliation, highlighting our retreat from the world stage. Meanwhile, in Iran, the centrifuges keep spinning. We now live in a world controlled by Russia and China.

 

[Denny Crane]

Seems like the middle east is on fire and the administration doesn't quite know how to deal with it but make it worse.

I haven't seen this much idiocy since Jimmy Carter gave us the Iran that today is working towards nukes and has otherwise backed virtually every jihadist group in the region.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

I don't care how much this makes Obama look bad or gives him a black eye in politics, I'm glad we aren't going to war.

 

[PapaG]

I just watched the speech. What was the point of it? A history lesson? Mostly it was our President letting us know how noble and smart he is. I always enjoy Stephen Green's take. http://pjmedia.com/vodkapundit/2013/09/10/drunkblogging-tsyria/

I especially liked his "blame Bush" diversion during his latest stream of bullshit, considering Bush went to Congress for Iraq and Afghanistan, while Obama bombed Libya w/out any vote in Congress, or even really any debate.

I believe our democracy is stronger when the President acts with the support of Congress. And I believe that America acts more effectively abroad when we stand together.

This is especially true after a decade that put more and more war-making power in the hands of the President, and more and more burdens on the shoulders of our troops, while sidelining the people’s representatives from the critical decisions about when we use force.

There is nothing else to call this but an outright fabrication, unless, of course, he is saying that he has put more "war-making power" in his own hand while ignoring the elected representatives of the people.

 

[PapaG]

The only way the president makes war his agenda is if his corporate sponsors want it. So to me the question is, "who wants war and why?"

I blame the Koch Brothers.

 

[BlazerCaravan]

I blame the Koch Brothers.

I blame no one yet; I am genuinely curious about who stood/stands to benefit most from a strike/total war against Syria.

 

[maxiep]

Seems like the middle east is on fire and the administration doesn't quite know how to deal with it but make it worse.

I haven't seen this much idiocy since Jimmy Carter gave us the Iran that today is working towards nukes and has otherwise backed virtually every jihadist group in the region.

President Obama is making Jimmy Carter look like Dwight D. Eisenhower.

 

[maxiep]

I blame no one yet; I am genuinely curious about who stood/stands to benefit most from a strike/total war against Syria.

Again, no one wants "total war". The only one who benefits from a strike is President Obama, and that's only because he drew a red line. There is no other reason at this point to strike Syria.

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

 

[blue9]

^^^Spot on!

 

[BlazerCaravan]

Again, no one wants "total war". The only one who benefits from a strike is President Obama, and that's only because he drew a red line. There is no other reason at this point to strike Syria.

If it's true that nobody benefits from a strike on Syria, a smart man in that position would realize his precarious position and look for an out, then try halfheartedly to convice the public it was totally his idea all along.