[mikeh]

What I find most interesting, and most difficult to figure out, is why Obama backed himself into a corner with his drawing of a red line.

Did he do it because he feared Syria would unleash chemical weapons, and he wanted to prevent that, or did he do it because he figured nobody would be that foolish as to actually use such weapons, and thus he could justify staying on the sidelines in terms of the civil war, without looking like he didn't give a damn?

As for the moral outrage, that's patently bullsh*t.

The US has condoned massive use of chemical warfare by its then friend, Iraq, after Iraq's attempt to capture oil-rich parts of Iran in the early 1980's. That was a massive miscalculation on the part of Hussein, who presumably expected the Iranian military to be in shambles after the revolution. Iran responded by conscripting hundreds of thousands and sending them into battle in a manner akin to WWI in France. This led to a desperate Hussein, badly outnumbered, using chemical weapons and the US stood by him.

Moreover, after the 1st Gulf War, Saddam was unpunished, despite the near-presence of a huge US military force, when he used chemical weapons upon some Iraqis who tried to overthrow him....Iraqis with at least arguably better pedigrees than many of the current Syrian rebels.

From my reading in history, where I am merely an interested amateur (sort of like bridge), it seems that any major power (or as we call them in these days of linguistic inflation, superpower), feels that it has a right to impose its world view on the rest of us.

The Romans were little different in their day. More recently, the British Empire.

One common aspect of the behaviour of these powers is that they proclaim to the world and, perhaps more importantly, to their citizens that they are bestowing good works on those whose countries they invade and whose military and, inevitably, civilians they kill.

Look at how many people have died bringing freedom to Iraq.

Look at how the US media, including television covering sporting events, describes all US armed forces personnel as 'defending our freedoms', as if Grenada was a threat to the liberty of Americans, or Iraq, or Iran, or Libya, or Syria, or in earlier generations, Cuba.

Is this to say that no war or act of aggression is ever justified? No.

There seems to be compelling reason for the invasion of Afghanistan. Too bad that the invasion of Iraq took so much money and so many resources: had even half of that been spent pacifying Afghanistan and ensuring that a generation got the benefit of reliable water, sanitation, electricity and schools (especially for girls) maybe we wouldn't be witnessing the morass that Afghanistan has become.

There was compelling reason for the US to enter WWII, altho it is worth noting that the US stood by, making huge profits, while Germany conquered most of Europe and began systematically murdering millions of Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, and communists. It is an interesting question as to whether the US would have gone to war with Germany in 1941 or even 1942 had Germany not declared war on the US. I wonder how many Americans even know that that is what actually brought the US into the European conflict?

Anyway, I ramble. My take on this and related topics is that what we see discussed in the media is rarely, if ever, even a fraction of what is going on, and the ostensible reasons for most state-sponsored aggression are almost invariably lies crafted to persuade or satisfy the sheeple whose obedience is a pre-requisite to the maintenance of political power by the power structures that govern the country.

[mike777]

Clearly since at least WWII the USA has indeed tried to impose its world view on the rest of you.
With great power comes great responsibility. Of course that is reason enough for the world to hate or at least resent the USA for trying to impose. Just let us not be naïve, someone else will try and fill any vacuum that is thought to exist.

With that said it may be time for the USA to withdraw from NATO and its foreign bases.
The world may very well be tired of the arrogance of the USA trying to impose its world view.

[ArtK78]

Be careful of becoming isolationist. The world is too small a place to ignore problems in other countries.

[mycroft]

First, apologies for the misname (Saudi/Syria). There's a reason for that, but it has nothing to do with this issue.

No, I can not see a situation where Canada using its military makes things better for the Syrians, or for Canada. I can not see a case where changing Canada's military would open such an option.

I hate to say it, but I don't think there's a way to get a good solution out of the Syrian civil war; I think that policies of this millenium mean that should the rebels win, it will be automatically bad for the US (more so than the rest of NA and Europe) and worse than if different policies had been taken 2000-2011; I think that if Assad wins, it won't be any better for the US or Israel (again, more than others) than it has been since 1967; I think that if the war continues for the forseeable future, it won't be any better for the Syrians than if either side win, but it won't be good in any cases.

Sometimes, there is no good solution, and the least bad solution is to do nothing and weep. But that has never been the motto of the U.S. - after all, there is *always* a solution (and we know what it is).

Re: Iran and nukes: off-topic, but I'm more afraid of a concealed carry holder in Charlotte with severe Macular Degeneration than I am about Iran's nukes. What do I suggest be done about it? At *most* as much as is done about NC's concealed carry policy.

[onoway]

mike777, on 2013-September-11, 13:39, said:

Do you think if Canada did it would it help? What about Iran and nukes would Canada use its military in that case?

If not what would you have Canada do that is has not done over the last couple of years regarding Syria or Iran and nukes?

For example would you have Canada spend much much more on its military so it could strike and support these actions?

Would you urge Europe to spend much more to support such actions?

No idea why you might think that.

I'm also not quite sure why you seem to be trying to bring Iran into everything. My own personal feeling, based on admittedly not a whole lot of information, is the US is forcing Iran's hand by being as confrontational there as it has been; if the roles were reversed what do you suppose the US would do? The US has not been a friend to Iran for a long time, if I'm not mistaken ever since Iran declined to accept the role that the US decided it deserved as a second class country destined to serve the US interests. Sort of like Cuba, although admittedly the rhetoric coming out of Iran was quite horrific at times. It's also the foolish position the US has gotton itself into of supporting Israel right or wrong. It's also quite hypocritical as the US has any number of multinational companies operating in Iran, including Haliburton, I believe.

I strongly disagree with Canada's position with Iran and think we are doing the old puppydog thing following the US lead rather than being adults and trying to keep a conversation going. You can't convince anyone that there might be a different or better way if there's no conversation, and conversation doesn't mean, I talk and you do as I say.

Also again my personal opinion, is that war is very very seldom the right solution. I would much prefer that the military do peacekeeping http://members.shaw....cekeepers2.html rather than getting involved with such adventures as Afghanistan. I truly resent our idealistic young men and women being used a cannon fodder for the benefit of oil cartels and such, however it's all dressed up as a "fight against terror".

Do you suppose that what was happening in Afghanistan was worse than what is happening right now and for the past few months in Syria? It's commonly stated that Syria shelters terrorists, which was supposedly the reason for going into Afghanistan, and it's pretty clear that the Syrian government is horrifically abusing its citizens, so why not Syria? How can you justify one and not the other?

That doesn't mean I think anyone should try to stomp on Syria, just that it's difficult to see how non interference can be justified given recent history. It's even more difficult seeing how interference would do much if any good there either. Perhaps the best we can do is look after those who show the initiative and foresight to get out, or give them somewhere to go that they can look after themselves.

Last I heard there are now well over 4 million people living in refugee camps in various parts of the world, and I think that was before Syria started blowing up.

[dwar0123]

onoway, on 2013-September-11, 16:59, said:

Do you suppose that what was happening in Afghanistan was worse than what is happening right now and for the past few months in Syria? It's commonly stated that Syria shelters terrorists, which was supposedly the reason for going into Afghanistan, and it's pretty clear that the Syrian government is horrifically abusing its citizens, so why not Syria? How can you justify one and not the other?

You really asking this question?

On 9/11?

[mike777]

I am a bit surprised so many posters do not think Iran and Syria are not directly linked.

Btw it makes sense if you think bombing Iran over nukes is the wrong decision then bombing Syria over WMD is the wrong decision.

Perhaps it may be a good first step to take the military option off the table and be for Peace. At the very least we could pull our navy out of the area as a sign of peace. As other posters pointed out America often uses its Navy to impose its worldview on others.

If another nation wants to build up their navy and put their ships in harms way, that is for them to decide.

[onoway]

dwar0123, on 2013-September-11, 16:59, said:

You really asking this question?

On 9/11?

Are you really suggesting that Afghanistan was responsible for 9/11? Aside from anything else, wasn't Bin Laden found in Pakistan, in fact?

"Terrorists" have supposedly been hiding under the bed of every country that the US is unhappy with or wants to have some control over, which is a bit like the boy who cried wolf. No doubt there are always going to be malcontents and some of those develop into terrorists and it would seem as though there are more every day. So perhaps it's time to try a different approach. Perhaps trying to deal with the things which lead people to make that choice might be considered.

The thing that is so frustrating is that so many Americans -and others - work so hard to make things better for people in the underdeveloped countries only to have much of their efforts get scuttled by politics and big business exploitation. Doesn't help much to prevent kids getting the measles or caring for their teeth if they are half starved because of the pittance their parents are able to earn or worse, lose their parents in such events as fires in unsafe sweatshops putting out cheap clothes for Walmart and Loblaws.

Then they wait for the pittance compensation which is publicly going to be offered but somehow nobody actually ever gets around to it. Surely that sort of thing breeds desperation, anger and resentment and enough of that sometimes breeds the need to "do something". Hunting down such people to shoot them is like trying to stop the water level in a pond from rising in a rainstorm by throwing rocks in it. I'm certainly not suggesting all terrorists came that route, but I'd lay odds that those who offer some focus for that need find relatively eager recruits there. Wasn't the feeling of being exploited what led to the American Revolution?

Trying for peace might be a good start.

[mike777]

Are you really suggesting that Afghanistan was responsible for 9/11? Aside from anything else, wasn't Bin Laden found in Pakistan, in fact




Yes I will go out on a limb and say Americans think so to a big degree, not 100%, plenty of blame to go around.

Again I am surprised in 2013 you don't know this.


Please keep in mind Americans, many of us, don't know who fought in the Civil war.

-------------------


I can understand the debate in Syria is confusing when many so many do not agree the Afghanistan war is just. The world is so busy debating old wars....how can they agree on a new one over WMD?

[akwoo]

I don't see what the big deal here is. I think any proposed military effort for Syria will involve less military person-hours and do less damage than the ongoing drone strikes in Pakistan; it just happens to be concentrated in a smaller amount of time.

The proposed strikes won't cost much, won't kill anyone who wouldn't be dead in another month or two due to some other bullet, and won't affect the Syrian civil war. It seems to me purely symbolic.

I can only see one way that this could get out of hand. Assad could threaten to gas another thousand civilians for every bomb dropped on him, and then China could publicly say they think every government should be allowed to gas its subjects(*), and Russia could publicly say that they will support Assad no matter whom he gasses. Then the US will end up looking quite impotent. (I don't think the US would be willing to put in the effort required to actually remove Assad themselves, especially since Assad can and might be willing to gas every Syrian before losing power.) But I don't think China and Russia are willing to be so publicly barbaric. I also don't think Assad (and his close advisors) are that kind of suicidal maniac (whereas I wouldn't be so sure about the North Korean leadership).

(*) When you hold that kind of viewpoint, it is no longer proper to translate the concept of 'people living in your country' as 'citizen'.

[mike777]

don't see what the big deal here is


spending 100 million or a billion of your money is not big deal?

I know I know it is only money...not yours

[hrothgar]

mike777, on 2013-September-11, 22:05, said:

Are you really suggesting that Afghanistan was responsible for 9/11? Aside from anything else, wasn't Bin Laden found in Pakistan, in fact

Please keep in mind Americans, many of us, don't know who fought in the Civil war.

They also have apparently forgotten a lot about Afghanistan...

I don't recall anyone on this list suggesting that the government of Afghanistan was responsible for the 9-11 attacks.
With this said and done, the government was officially sheltering Osama bin Laden.

bin Laden was (pretty definitely) in Afghanistan up until the battle of Tora Bora.
Letting him get away and cross the border into Pakistan was considered quite an embarrassment at the time.

[blackshoe]

Seems to be a lot of hand wringing and finger pointing in here, and not a lot of thinking.

[billw55]

Not sure I would call the Taliban a government. They were certainly willfully supporting Al Qaida to the point that Afghanistan was their de facto home territory.

[billw55]

mike777, on 2013-September-11, 18:17, said:

Btw it makes sense if you think bombing Iran over nukes is the wrong decision then bombing Syria over WMD is the wrong decision.

There may be a parallel there. But also there is a big difference between possession and use.

[y66]

Guest post from Vladimir V. Putin, the president of Russia

Quote

We must stop using the language of force and return to the path of civilized diplomatic and political settlement.

A new opportunity to avoid military action has emerged in the past few days. The United States, Russia and all members of the international community must take advantage of the Syrian government’s willingness to place its chemical arsenal under international control for subsequent destruction. Judging by the statements of President Obama, the United States sees this as an alternative to military action.

I welcome the president’s interest in continuing the dialogue with Russia on Syria. We must work together to keep this hope alive, as we agreed to at the Group of 8 meeting in Lough Erne in Northern Ireland in June, and steer the discussion back toward negotiations.

If we can avoid force against Syria, this will improve the atmosphere in international affairs and strengthen mutual trust. It will be our shared success and open the door to cooperation on other critical issues.

My working and personal relationship with President Obama is marked by growing trust. I appreciate this. I carefully studied his address to the nation on Tuesday. And I would rather disagree with a case he made on American exceptionalism, stating that the United States’ policy is “what makes America different. It’s what makes us exceptional.” It is extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivation. There are big countries and small countries, rich and poor, those with long democratic traditions and those still finding their way to democracy. Their policies differ, too. We are all different, but when we ask for the Lord’s blessings, we must not forget that God created us equal.

[kenberg]

The closing line from Putin's op-ed:

Quote

We are all different, but when we ask for the Lord's blessings, we must not forget that God created us equal.

Have I walked into a Woody Allen movie? In Midnight in Paris the hero is sitting at a table with Salvador Dali et al explaining that he has been mapped back from 2011 to the 1920s. Being good surrealists, they find nothing at all extraordinary about this claim.

There is precedent for religious conversion on the road to Damascus, however.

[mikeh]

onoway, on 2013-September-11, 21:02, said:

Are you really suggesting that Afghanistan was responsible for 9/11? Aside from anything else, wasn't Bin Laden found in Pakistan, in fact?

'Afghanistan' wasn't responsible for 9/11, but bin laden and his followers were, and they had been given safe haven, and training grounds, etc, by the then Afghanistan government, which was the 'taliban'. Thus, indirectly, the organization that ruled Afghanistan was responsible, since bin laden was dependent on their assistance or at least condonation in order to have someplace where his people could be indoctrinated/trained and so on.

Quote

The thing that is so frustrating is that so many Americans -and others - work so hard to make things better for people in the underdeveloped countries only to have much of their efforts get scuttled by politics and big business exploitation. Doesn't help much to prevent kids getting the measles or caring for their teeth if they are half starved because of the pittance their parents are able to earn or worse, lose their parents in such events as fires in unsafe sweatshops putting out cheap clothes for Walmart and Loblaws.

I think it is far more complex than you see to think. Sure, the big stores (and many little stores) import huge quantities of cheap clothing and other goods made by workers who have, to our eyes, intolerable working conditions.

Let's think a little about the consequences of saying to their employers that working conditions and wages must improve significantly.

The reason that so many items are made in the factories that burn down is that, often, those factories are not the ones hired by the Western companies. What happens is that the buyers impose such stringent terms on the factory owners that the owners have to take on more orders than they can fulfil, in order to make even a modest profit, and they meet the demand by sub-contracting to factories that don't meet the already minimal standards required by the importers. This is a direct result of well-intentioned efforts, over the past 20+ years, to pressure the buyers into requiring certain standards from those with whom they deal directly.

What has happened, then, is that the conditions, if not the pay, in the 'approved' factories have improved, but there are still many factories that are disasters waiting to happen, who survive one step removed from the buyers.

Let's say that the buyers decide to require that all factories are safe and that a living wage is paid to all.

What happens to the owners of the factories? I am NOT saying that we should pity them, by the way. What I am saying is that they won't be owners very long unless they are making a profit...so the prices go up....and guess what happens to demand?

The Targets and Walmarts and Nikes and others will either go elsewhere to find product or will be forced to raise their prices, and most likely do both.

The impact of their going elsewhere should be obvious: factories close, and workers lose their jobs. Those jobs, awful tho they seem to us, are very important to the workers.

The impact of raised retail prices is also obvious: there will be a reduction in demand. That will not have as dramatic an impact as stopping business altogether, but that won't seem clear to the workers who are going to be laid off.

In Bangladesh, I would suggest that a job in a garment factory is preferable to no job, given that countries such as Bangladesh aren't renowned for their social safety nets.

It is useful to remember that it wasn't that long ago that working conditions for the majority of inhabitants of Western countries were comparable to the conditions we now bemoan in the Third World. Try reading some Charles Dickens. Try reading about the conditions prevailing in France circa 1780. Or in Russia when Tolstoy was writing.

Should we just close our eyes and ignore what goes on in the poorer countries? I would hope the answer would be a resounding NO.

But the problems are complex, and simple solutions, altho beloved by politicians, rarely make things better. Increase education. Increase health care. Try to change cultural attitudes towards such things as birth control, so as to reduce over-population.

Making these changes takes generations of sustained effort. Simply telling the Walmarts of the world to pay more can happen overnight, but I very much doubt that anyone in Bangladesh would thank us for doing so.

[mikeh]

kenberg, on 2013-September-12, 07:53, said:

The closing line from Putin's op-ed:



Have I walked into a Woody Allen movie? In Midnight in Paris the hero is sitting at a table with Salvador Dali et al explaining that he has been mapped back from 2011 to the 1920s. Being good surrealists, they find nothing at all extraordinary about this claim.

There is precedent for religious conversion on the road to Damascus, however.

My reading of Putin was that he wasn't referring or pretending to refer to any religious belief he has.

All American politicians end every speech by invoking god's blessing on America.

All American politicians claim that the US is 'exceptional'.

Putin was pointing out, in a fashion apparently too subtle for most Americans, that it is hypocritical or at least inconsistent to claim both that god created all people equal AND that America is exceptional and entitled to particular blessing from this god of theirs.

I would be very surprised if Putin were religious. Frankly, part of me likes to think that Obama isn't really all that religious either, but is instead close in spirit to that French King who was a Protestant until offered the throne whereupon he is alleged to have said that Paris was worth a mass. However, I suspect that Obama is merely like so many others who, being born into a religious society, has never taken the time or made the effort to actually think about what it is that his cult tells him to accept.

[helene_t]

mikeh, on 2013-September-12, 09:17, said:

However, I suspect that Obama is merely like so many others who, being born into a religious society, has never taken the time or made the effort to actually think about what it is that his cult tells him to accept.

Maybe but he has always said that he became Christian by choice. http://articles.lati...ligion-20100929