The News Thread

[Irish]

As for chemical weapons, the reports are not just from some guy in Israel. They're being independently confirmed by Syrian doctors and British and French intelligence as well.

The "some guy in Israel" was a brigadier general in the Israeli army. His conclusions were contradicted the same day by Israel's own Prime Minister. British and French intelligence are just as clueless. Unless they have boots on the ground inside Syria, there is no way to know for sure that Assad has used chemical weapons. Didn't you learn anything from Iraq?

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/24/wo...l-weapons.html

Notice that US officials were saying they had no conclusive proof, that they had no concrete evidence. Then suddenly, two or three days later they do. But if you read the press reports, nobody says shit about soil samples or direct evidence. What does that tell you?

This is just more gamesmanship. The US doesn't give a shit about the Syrians, but they can't come out and say that. They care about the weapons (and maybe the oil, making sure that jihadists don't seize control of the country & that Israel doesn't get fucked over in the process.

[Irish]

Ask any Panamanian how they feel about the US helping them oust their dictator.

That was more about the canal & removing an embarrassing former US employee.

Ask Germany.

What?

Ask Russia.

Seriously. What?

Ask South Korea how they feel about having a developed country with basic human rights as opposed to what's happening right next door.

You do realize that South Korea was a military dictatorship for roughly twenty years after the war, right?

The US has a responsibility as an enormously influential, wealthy and powerful nation to use that status for the good of all people.

Maybe. I mean, that's kinda sorta debatable. But the bigger point is that the US has never actually done what you're describing. We never act out of purely humanitarian motives.

After Gitmo & Abu Gharib, we certainly don't have any moral high ground to operate from when it comes to other countries.

As for "watching the slaughter": See the aforementioned Somalia, Bosnia, Rwanda, and -- also! -- Cambodia. All places that murdered their own people while the US stood by and did exactly nothing. (Why? Because those countries didn't have anything pertinent to US interests, that's why. It's never been about the people, about the humanity).

[B-side]

There's zero use in discussing humanitarian efforts with someone who thinks there doesn't exist a genuinely sympathetic nerve in the entirety of the US or the UN and that they do nothing outside of their own interests. You know you can do something for someone else as well as for yourself, right? Also, Bosnia has been relatively stable for several years since independence, thanks largely to the UN peacekeeping force that is still there. The UN doesn't go where it isn't invited, which is why they can't just waltz in and save the day.

Russia and Germany are self-explanatory. The US played a huge role in ending WWII and subsequent peacekeeping efforts. As for Bosnia:

After three and a half years of fighting, the Dayton Peace Accord was signed in Paris, France, on December 14, 1995. Three weeks of intense negotiations at the Wright Patterson Air Base in Dayton, Ohio, preceded the signing with the U.S. and other allies having taken an active role in those talks. Significant progress has been made in the restoration of Bosnia-Herzegovina by the U.S. and other countries, including a sharp decrease in inter-ethnic violence, restored freedom of movement from country to country, and more than one million refugees and others returned to their former homes by October 2004.

As for Rwanda, we didn't do anything. That's the problem. Not that we were bad at it, but that we didn't do anything, but I guarantee the millions of Rwandans who benefited from our aid after the fact were pretty appreciative, as little as that may mean in retrospect. The UN support was weak and lacked proper international cooperation.

A no-fly zone would provide a heavily fortified safe haven for moderate rebels and their children and families. I don't know how you could possibly argue against something like that. We can't hold their hand, but we can sure as hell throw some training wheels on as they form a new government.

[[ETM]]

Bosnia has been relatively stable for several years since independence, thanks largely to the UN peacekeeping force that is still there.

This is exactly what's wrong with this matter: by "stable", you mean "not a problem for us".

Trust me, Bosnia and Herzegovina is next door, and it's nowhere near "stable". The "solution" was flawed and the underlying issues are still there.

[Irish]

There's zero use in discussing humanitarian efforts with someone who thinks there doesn't exist a genuinely sympathetic nerve in the entirety of the US or the UN and that they do nothing outside of their own interests. You know you can do something for someone else as well as for yourself, right?

This is not the argument I'm making. I'm saying: Regardless of what you think may be "right" or morally compelling, the United States does not act for humanitarian reasons. And it never has.

Russia and Germany are self-explanatory.

Yeah. You're gonna have to explain that one.

Germany was a sovereign nation that declared war on US allies, invaded them, and then declared war on the US two years later. Our involvement in WWII was not motivated by the need to oust a dictator or any humanitarian needs.

The Soviet Union collapsed on its own. We had nothing to do with it, and it caught us completely by surprise. (Unless you believe hat US defense spending precipitated and accelated that collapse, which, eh. Debatable).

As for Bosnia:

You're skipping the part where the UN and NATO dragged their feet for almost two years and did nothing. And the part where a mass murder went down inside a UN "safe zone," while no-fly was in effect. And the part where NATO only got involved because the UN begged for military help.

Google 'Srebrenica massacre.' It's not pretty.

I guarantee the millions of Rwandans who benefited from our aid after the fact were pretty appreciative, as little as that may mean in retrospect.

We let 500,000 of their countrymen die. Tthe amount of money we give them is piddling; they don't even make the top 25 in foreign aid. And we just cut military aid to them over a rumor they were supporting Congolese rebels. Good stuff, huh?

A no-fly zone would provide a heavily fortified safe haven for moderate rebels and their children and families. I don't know how you could possibly argue against something like that.

I'm not arguing against it. Just making the point that no-fly zones are a joke of a solution.

PS: Thought of another one. East Timor. Not only did we sell arms and equipment to the Indonesian government, we gave them tacit approval for their invasion and subsequent ~25 year military occupation. 100,000 people died. U-S-A! U-S-A!

[B-side]

You do realize you're only making an argument for earlier and more efficient intervention, right? I'm not suggesting the US is perfect, or capable of working miracles, but I'd damn sure rather see us make a concerted effort to stop the merciless slaughter of thousands of people in whatever means we can than simply let it happen because things don't always work out perfectly. This attitude of apathy and cynicism breeds the type of corruption and solipsism that hurts not only our country, but others in far more urgent need than us. I'm fine with a few things going wrong if it means a better future for millions of people. You've yet to convince me in any fashion that humanitarian aid and UN-led military support is in any way not going to be helpful, let alone a bad idea altogether.

[B-side]

This is exactly what's wrong with this matter: by "stable", you mean "not a problem for us".

Trust me, Bosnia and Herzegovina is next door, and it's nowhere near "stable". The "solution" was flawed and the underlying issues are still there.

No, I mean that it's not in a constant state of civil war. Of course there are problems when a country splits from another one and has to forge an identity of its own. The Dayton Accord provided at least some semblance of stability. Unless you wanna stop people from being jingoistic assholes or being enraged at someone for believing in the wrong fairy godfather, then by all means do so. The US, nor any other nation, can fix these problems at their root, but what they CAN do is provide a safe platform for each side to negotiate on. This is precisely what's happening with Serbia and Kosovo.

[Grouchy]

The idea that the US helped Panama in any way is so cynical it made me chuckle.

[Qrazy]

The idea that the US helped Panama in any way is so cynical it made me chuckle.

I think you mean naive rather than cynical, no?

[Grouchy]

I think you mean naive rather than cynical, no?

Well, in B-Side's case I guess it must be naiveté. Distorting reality intentionally would be cynical.

[B-side]

The notion that the US didn't help Panama in any way is naive. The process of democratization is sloppy, and no doubt some presidents during the years of Panama's transition handled it better than others. Carter handled it pretty well by agreeing to forfeit 65% of the canal back to the Panamanians. Supporting civilian coups to overthrow corrupt dictators seems like a pretty reasonable course of action to me. As usual, the fact that these things never go absolutely perfectly is no reason to abandon the cause. I'm under no illusion that the US' history of military intervention has been great, but rather spotty at best, which is why my original point was never for us to invade Syria. And the fact that some bad things have happened in a no fly zone is also no argument against the establishment of one in Syria. But I guess since nothing ever works out exactly as it was intended, we should probably focus that train of thought on our domestic policy, too. Some people abuse welfare, so why have it at all? Some police use excessive force when apprehending non-violent suspects, so why even bother having a police force? It doesn't always work, so there's no real point in trying.

[B-side]

I am curious, though, since this is a discussion forum, what would those of you who oppose any American involvement whatsoever propose be done to dampen the crisis in Syria? I'm not going to pretend like I'm an expert on US foreign relations, or even that I have a good knowledge of the extent of our involvement in the Syrian crisis already, outside the recently announced $123 million in aid we're going to send. The rebels have our diplomatic support, but outside of that, I'm unsure just how far we've already sank our boots into the soil there. Obviously we can all agree that a full scale US military invasion is a terrible idea, but there are things we can do that don't involve military action.

[Robby P]

Supporting civilian coups to overthrow corrupt dictators seems like a pretty reasonable course of action to me.

In theory this sounds good but in reality the United States usually ends up supporting dissident groups that replace one ruthless dictator with another one that is simply more favorable to US interests. The US rarely, if ever, supports regime changes for purely humanitarian reasons and its interference often leads to more disastrous results for the local population than if they had chosen not to intervene at all.

I have no problem with providing aid and diplomatic support to the rebel faction but can't support economic sanctions or military intervention. The latter two will only bring death and destruction to even more people under the pretense of being a humanitarian exercise. Sadly, we could probably help make this a much bigger international issue if there was any political capital to expend on it here at home but most of the country doesn't give a shit when scary brown people from thousands of miles away start killing each other. Hell, we don't even care when we're the ones responsible for killing those same scary brown people let alone when it's somebody else's doing.

[B-side]

The US doesn't have to have altruistic (which I don't believe exists anyway) intent for its actions to benefit others. If we help Syria develop a stable democratic government that we end up aligning ourselves with and getting oil or whatever from, then so be it. Syria makes money, jobs get created and we get oil. If the argument against US intervention is that it should be left to the Syrian people to decide, then that's not at all incompatible with what I'm suggesting. If they end up electing someone we don't like, but still respects the rights of citizens, then it will not have been in vain. We may not be thrilled with their choice, but we'd be hard pressed to call a democratically elected leader with respect for individual liberty in the region anything but a massive upgrade.

[Robby P]

The Syrian prime minister was, reportedly, targeted in an assassination attempt today. The rebels claim the state is lying. Meanwhile, 26 people died in various car bombings across Southern Iraq and Libya is now reportedly once again full of Islamic jihadists who have migrated from Mali. Just another day in the Middle East and North Africa. Oh well, what's on the tele tonight?

[Yxklyx]

This doesn't make any sense. Nobody compared arsenals ... except, apparently, you. What bearing does the US weapon supply have on Syria, or that possibility that Syrian weapons could be smuggled out of that country in the absence of any real government?

What I'm saying is that the supposed threat of Syrian Chemical weapons becoming available to anyone is blown out of all proportion and is just being used as political muscle (just like the WMDs in Iraq). We here in the USA have chemical weapons in over-abundance that are more easily accessible by anyone - so worrying about what happens to a minor stockpile is ridiculous when you compare the threat here in the USA.

[Grouchy]

B-Side,the history of US involvement in foreign affairs is clearly not about humanitarian efforts or democracy building but profit. In fact, there's plenty of evidence that the CIA backed military coups in South America during the '70s, as part of the supposed war on communism. I suggest you do a bit of research on Pinochet's overthrowing of Allende, for example. In that case you would find the US putting money on building a dictatorship against a democratic government, which is the polar opposite of what you're arguing, simply because Allende's government had leftist tendencies.

I'm betting you've seen Chávez talked about often in US media as a "terrorist". Now, how was Chávez a terrorist? I've never lived in Venezuela so I'm not in a position to defend his government strongly, but how is he a terrorist? He won elections twice. He was only called a "terrorist" because he spoke strongly (and sometimes in a pretty funny way) against US policies of cultural and economical colonization and imperialism.

Next time you try to argue in favor of "humanitarian" interventions, ask yourself why the US doesn't intervene in Africa where there are political massacres all the time or even in the Amazonas where Indian tribes commit acts against human rights on a daily basis.

[B-side]

B-Side,the history of US involvement in foreign affairs is clearly not about humanitarian efforts or democracy building but profit. In fact, there's plenty of evidence that the CIA backed military coups in South America during the '70s, as part of the supposed war on communism. I suggest you do a bit of research on Pinochet's overthrowing of Allende, for example. In that case you would find the US putting money on building a dictatorship against a democratic government, which is the polar opposite of what you're arguing, simply because Allende's government had leftist tendencies.

I'm betting you've seen Chávez talked about often in US media as a "terrorist". Now, how was Chávez a terrorist? I've never lived in Venezuela so I'm not in a position to defend his government strongly, but how is he a terrorist? He won elections twice. He was only called a "terrorist" because he spoke strongly (and sometimes in a pretty funny way) against US policies of cultural and economical colonization and imperialism.

Next time you try to argue in favor of "humanitarian" interventions, ask yourself why the US doesn't intervene in Africa where there are political massacres all the time or even in the Amazonas where Indian tribes commit acts against human rights on a daily basis.

I'm well aware of the Pinochet stuff. And again, because it sometimes goes wrong, is not an argument against humanitarian intervention. Nobody is suggesting the US or even a UN coalition can waltz in and solve an ongoing ethnic crisis. What they can do is provide mediation for compromise. A safer place for opposing leaders to come together and talk. I've never heard the US refer to Chavez as a terrorist, but he did participate in a violent revolution. The US didn't like him because he was oppressive and leaned toward communist ideology. He took back control of Venezuela's oil sector and the US didn't like that either. You guys keep talking to me as if I believe the US is this beacon of untarnished integrity, when I've clearly stated that I'm very much aware of our own history of self-centered foreign policy and outright corruption. What you guys fail to understand is that this mutual benefit approach to foreign policy is in no way a strictly US phenomenon, and is not in and of itself a bad thing. If we help Syria form a coalition government and appoint a democratically elected leader and get some decent trade out of it, then how exactly is that bad? Not only does Syria get a bunch of money from trade to help rebuild their country and put their people to work, we at home get some cheap oil or whatever that keeps our energy sector going strong. And the US does intervene in Africa, through mostly strictly humanitarian means. If you really think we only ever help out so we can get shit, then we would be all over Africa. That continent is bursting at the seams with precious minerals and oil. Same for South America. As for Amazonian tribes committing crimes against human rights, that sounds like something your local governments should be addressing since it's not a nationwide conflict. Small tribal warfare is something that should be handled by the country in which it exists. Syria is a vastly different beast.

[MadMan]

B-Side its clear that Obama is only a little better than Duyba in that he hasn't tried to get the US involved in another stupid foreign war. However its obvious that Obama is playing politics with Syria, especially since he has the far bigger problems of dealing with Iran's stupid nuclear program and North Korea's psychotic government. I'm sorry but those are far larger concerns than Syria's civil war at the moment. I do wonder if Israel will get involved at some point since Syria is right on their boarder and the two countries have fought wars before.

[B-side]

I don't get this "playing politics" and "gamesmanship" accusation. What in the hell could Obama possibly have to benefit from intervening in Syria? Why would he play up the conflict in a nation that poses zero threat to us? This conspiratorial nonsense has got to stop. Not everybody's gaming you or out to get you. Iran and North Korea's nuclear ambitions are not short term problems, so yes, he's got plenty of time and capital to use to try and help stop the slaughter of thousands of people and the subsequent refugee crisis in the Middle East.

[B-side]

Libya is now reportedly once again full of Islamic jihadists who have migrated from Mali.

Not sure where you got this. I'm seeing that armed gunmen are surrounding Libya's justice ministry because they want Gaddafi's old staff removed. Can't really blame them much there.

[B-side]

In potentially good news, it seems there may be a breakthrough in Israeli-Palestinian peace talks

[Robby P]

Not sure where you got this. I'm seeing that armed gunmen are surrounding Libya's justice ministry because they want Gaddafi's old staff removed. Can't really blame them much there.

It was the lead story on The Guardian yesterday:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013...olence-tripoli

[B-side]

It was the lead story on The Guardian yesterday:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013...olence-tripoli

Perhaps the story I was referring to was in response to this? Ugh. I don't think the AU is doing enough to quell this shit.

[Robby P]

What in the hell could Obama possibly have to benefit from intervening in Syria? Why would he play up the conflict in a nation that poses zero threat to us?

Syria (or, more specifically, the Assad regime) is a strategic ally of Iran, Russia and China. The United States is supporting the rebel faction not because Assad is a ruthless dictator but because of who he chooses to do business with. The Middle East is full of ruthless dictators that the United States freely supports if it suits their interests. Saudi Arabia, for instance, has an atrocious human rights record and we could easily justify humanitarian intervention on behalf of the local dissidents but we choose not to do so because the Saudis are loyal business companions.