Lol @ your PS
Sometimes, I don't feel Israel is grateful enough, for the US' support. :/
On another note, do you feel that the main source of strife between Israel and its neighbors stems from fundamental religious differences?
The Syrian "Revolution": A Farce from Beginning to End
- Thread starter ExposingAmericanLies
- Start date
Lol @ your PS
Sometimes, I don't feel Israel is grateful enough, for the US' support. :/
On another note, do you feel that the main source of strife between Israel and its neighbors stems from fundamental religious differences?
I don't feel sorry for them; I just wondered if anyone else felt similarly.
Very interesting points you make.
So...I was reading about other country's thoughts to the Syrian crisis.
And I honestly didn't think NZ was even on the list, but they would get involved if it meant helping in a defense effort.
It sounds like NZ would offer "moral support, but very interesting to note its opinion of the US.
I read that NZ doesn't want to be "America's puppet."
I'm paraphrasing ...I'll post the link to all of this tomorrow.
What is the tone of your fellow countrymen, with this situation?
Well thanks, but I'm totally incapable of giving the tone of my countrymen, but I asked the very next man that came into the office. "What do you think about our Prime Minister offering support to the Americans over in Syria?" Well I'd have to say he was dead against it. We offer troops to peace keeping situations all over the world, but to get involved in a tribal battle is not for us. We can't afford it.
We pay the economic price of supporting the US, the other nations like China and Russia start getting stroppy about trade issues.
Personally I'd put a bullet into Assad any day, but he is the President of that country and to assassinate a President is that what the Lord wants a Christian to do? I haven't killed a man yet, but I always thought if you can shoot an animal you can a shoot a man, it would feel about the same.
My Dad would get us to cut the sheep's throats, just to show that we were tough enough, but I know he hated killing anything, and that is why he would hand me the rifle, if I was around, when he killed anything.
CptBork, your eloquence escapes me. Again you post nothing that adds in any way to the solving of any problems.
You choose to use name calling and slanderous remarks - if that if the best you have to offer...well...
You have no Idea who or what I am, you have repeatedly shown the lack of your deductive reasoning powers, your inability to critically read or process information and most of all you ignorance of any viewpoint other than your own.
CptBork, you state : quote - "No, your questions are not open and honest, they're intended to paint me into a corner and deserve appropriately retarded responses." - unquote
They are intended as questions - no more, no less - there was no "agenda" behind them - they were not "attempts" to "paint" you "into a corner".
CptBork, you state : quote - "I was just trying to be polite to you without jumping to premature conclusions." - unquote
You had not been so "polite" prior to those questions or while you were asking those questions - you know yourself that you had already "jumped" to your so called "conclusions" prior to even Posting.
Your claim that I attempted to "paint you into a corner" is baseless, and you know it - yet you believe you have me in a corner of your making - you have no idea of who or what I am. You presume and assume that your calling me a "bigot" or "racist" or "9/11 truther brain injury lunatic type" or "white supremacist" or "conspiracy loon" or "stupid" in some way makes me that. It does not.
By making those statements and accusations, it only makes it obvious to everyone who reads these Posts, and clearly and honestly thinks for themselves, what you are.
I, dmoe, have in these Posts, only Posted examples of the "Farce" that was in this Thread Title - I, dmoe, have kept my personal opinions of the current "Syrian Issue" pretty much to myself - other than stating that basically, it was only a small ploy in a much larger "Chess Match".
CptBork, I served as a Warrant Officer in the U.S. Army, and on my ETS date was Honorably Discharged as a WO3 - I could ask if you served in any military service of any kind, but you would probably see that as just another attempt to "paint you into...
I will ask though, have you ever had to put any of your Comrades into a Body Bag? Have you ever had to Recon and Document the effects of your own or another army's weapons strike or battle?
Have you ever personally seen with your own eyes - or smelt with your own nose - or tasted, not just with your mouth, but your whole soul - the effects of a "Cluster Bomb" or "Flechette Round" or "Incendiary Device" or even just the old reliable "Willy Pete" (White Phosphorous)?
I will ask you, CptBork, how many times have you had to "debrief" a young man or woman, within hours or even minutes of having limbs blown off and seeing their friends blown apart in front of them, while still in shock, how many times, CptBork?
Do you sleep in fits of maybe 45 minutes or an hour and awaken in horror and dread - or maybe not sleep at all for days at a time - do you suck it up and know that is how it will be, at the very least, until you close your eyes for the last time in this world, and hope that it will not follow you into he next?
Have you ever had to look into the eyes of a Wife, Husband, Daughter, Son, Mother or Father and inform them that as a poor replacement for a Loved One you would give them an excuse and an Award and a "Special Document" with a "Famous Signature" on it? Have you, CptBork?
Do you ever visit people who were once vibrant, hearty, strong, brave and valiant soldiers, who are now suffering the effects of trauma of some sort or the other and are still "alive" but have not even the ability to discern your presence?
Do you visit them and see the aftereffects that have led them to serious Drug, Alcohol, Criminal or Mental Problems?
Do you get phone calls at all hours from someone who just needs someone to talk to who "knows"?
Do you ever have to turn and walk away from some brash young lad who is begging you to "step up", because you know that if you stay for just a few more seconds, that in just a few seconds after that you will have taken something that you have taken from others before him - but this time you will not have a "Government" sanctioning your actions to make it "O.K." ?
I ask you, CptBork, have you? ...Could you? ...
I know...but you can presume...you can assume...you can can accuse...you can even call me names on an Internet Forum...you can, possibly, pat yourself on the back, or "Self High Five" or otherwise "Celebrate" your unearned and undeserved "Victory" at having "Dissed" a very mistakenly perceived "Racist" or "Bigot" or "Stupid KKK Affiliated White Supremacist" or "9/11 truther brain injury lunatic type" or "Stupid" Poster on that aforementioned Internet Forum...yes, CptBork, you can do that...
I could go on to say that you can do that because of a bunch of belittling or derogatory remarks...I could lash out at you...I could accuse you...I could call you names...I could try to embarrass you...I could shame you...I could presume or assume to know you or your thoughts or ideals or upbringing...I could if that was what I felt were the actions of a man...
CptBork, I dmoe, cannot do those things because I choose not to...those were not things I ever aspired to do in the past...those are not things that I will allow myself to do now, nor in the future...because those are not the actions of the man I choose and aspire to be.
CptBork, I know exactly who I am...I know exactly what my abilities and capabilities are...I know my limits... I know the lines I will never under any circumstances cross...I have seen, participated in, planned and executed horrible things for my "country"...I have to "carry my own water"...I have to live every day of the rest of my life with so much shame and self-loathing inside me...
CptBork, continue your life any way you choose or see fit to...act in any way you choose...just hope that you never "Call Out" a man who is truly very similar to me, but with a little less discipline than myself, and that that man "Answers Your Call"!
If it were in my power or I had the control, I would see to it that no young man or woman would ever again have to don a uniform and do the things that I have done, for a "Flag" or a "Country" or an "Ideal" or a "Religion" or an "Agenda" on this planet!
Those are just a few reasons that I am against ANY MILITARY ACTION OF ANY KIND until at least ALL FACTS ARE KNOWN AND VERIFIED!
Then we can ponder and decide the best course of action...we need not rush blindly...
The world that I live in is not in all ways a beautiful place, nor is it entirely the opposite...but it is the only one that any of us has!
Regardless of "Who Controls" the media...or what "Agenda" the "Whoever They Are" is pushing...not any single one human being should just "Suck at that Kool-Aid Teat like a Good Little Sheople" and fall in Rank behind them!
Does it matter if we wait a few days or a month...we can jump back on the road to "WWIII" at any time in the future and completely destroy all life on this planet...that is a fairly easy thing to do with the military capability of even some of the smaller nations on this planet...
But once we do that...there are no take backs...no do overs...we cannot just grab a few more "Red Bulls" or "Mountain Dews" and restart the game...
Last edited:
I think the only compelling reason for military intervention in Syria is the fact the Assad regime is sitting on one of the world’s largest stockpiles of chemical weapons and the instability of the Assad regime could lead to those weapons ending up in the hands of various terrorists groups including al-Qaeda.
As to my background, I am a former Navy corpsman. I know well the smell and feel of burnt flesh. I know also the sweet metallic smell of freshly spilled blood and the stillness and coldness of dead flesh. I also know there is no glory in war. There are heroes, but there is no glory. War is a messy and awful business. But unfortunately it is sometimes necessary.
And I find the uses of our military for purely political reasons like Somalia, Iraq I and II repugnant. But the fear of Syria’s WMD cache falling into the hands of terrorists is a real threat to the nation which warrants military intervention. This intervention needs to better and executed smarter than the Iraq and Afghanistan invasions. And I think it will be. Obama is a much better leader and more intellectually astute and engaged than his predecessor. We should not repeat the mistakes of Afghanistan and Iraq. And under Obama’s leadership I don’t think we will.
So in the end, it doesn’t matter wither the gassing of civilians was real or not. It doesn’t matter wither Israel provided us with the intelligence on Syria’s alleged gassing of its civilians. It is a well-established fact Syria’s Assad is sitting on one of the world’s largest stockpiles of chemical weapons and the ongoing civil war has placed the control of those weapons into jeopardy. And therein lays the justification for military intervention. We certainly do not need or want those weapons in the hands of al-Qaeda or any affiliated organization.
Well that is the grim reality of war, and you have obviously seen things the majority haven't, but it seemed to change a little on the re-edit. I see it in bees and other social animals, some parts of the whole "organism" has to be expendable as horrible as it seems. Cells do it they get in there and sacrifice themselves for the betterment of the whole organism. Bees do the same, there are those that guard the hive and when they sting that is them doomed to demise, but they do it and don't hold back for if they did the whole hive would be doomed.
I have applied the same concept to a nation.
But I see your point and the purpose of the United Nations is to try and make the whole world the one hive, the one body but we haven't quite got there yet.
All this talk of saving face is more of the same the old style, I think we maybe better off the longer and more considered the reproach is, for even Putin and Assad have wives and kids to think about each night when the come home from their war rooms.
"Gatekeepers" - movie about Israel and Palestine. might be worth seeing it on YouTube
Joos.
They control the world with their situation comedies.
[video=youtube;T5n_YUBQIYQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5n_YUBQIYQ[/video]
Last edited:
You accuse me of being a Zionist disinformation agent, link me to a bunch of racist propaganda such as KKK Grand Wizard David Duke and the same kind of "information" networks he links to, and expect me not to draw conclusions?
Then why label me a disinformation agent? Why the whole evil villain monologue about "aha, I've revealed you at last!" I access most of my info exactly the same way you do, I just have better instincts about where to look and where to avoid the offramp to Coocooville.
If I jumped to conclusions the way you do, I wouldn't have wasted my time politely answering your questions about the Arab Spring. You're just pissed off because I pointed out to wegs that an unholy alliance has formed between 9/11 conspiracy theorists and other anti-Western dissidents, white supremacists and Iranian fundamentalists, right before you outed yourself in the same group.
I think you've made your opinion fairly obvious already. You believe either Israel is faking evidence that Assad gassed his own people, or that Israel itself helped to stage it.
That's no excuse for being a racist loon and linking to racist loon websites to make your racist point.
No, because I know how to control my anger and solve issues civilly, I don't go looking for violent confrontations to take my problems out on others.
So then you agree David Duke is a racist hate-filled lunatic you shouldn't have linked to as a reference? Am I mistakenly assuming you believe anything on any of the conspiracy links you've referred to thus far?
Then you should have no issue with Syrians, Lebanese, Israelis and others defending themselves from the horrible things Shia militants are being ordered to do to them (unlike you, Shia militants claim to be ashamed because they haven't killed enough).
No different than neo-Nazis telling me what I'd get if I confronted them in person. Well if some crazed oldtimer US warrant officer wants to come at me, I'll call the police if he's a hoss, otherwise they say an effective defense tactic is to rip his cheesy thin "churchgoing pedophile" moustache clean off. It ain't ever gonna happen to be honest, because I don't waste my time talking to violent irrational people.
You'd make your people sitting ducks while Iranians in uniform overran them.
Why just say that instead of going after the "Jew media" for presenting some very solid and plausible evidence that Assad just gassed thousands of his own people? Why not just say you don't trust Israel's claims, nor do you trust the Syrian rebels who are the source for most of the information on the actual attack, and haven't seen enough evidence from your own government to support a strike? You went much, much further than that.
Seems to me that's exactly what you're doing with David Duke and the like.
And if the presidents of France, Britain and the US all say they've got undeniable proof from scientific tests, satellite photos, eyewitness testimony and communications intercepts that Assad's forces were behind the attack, are you going to believe them? Or is this all just a basic exercise in rhetoric meant to tell us not to impede the expansion of Iranian militancy because they're not a threat to anyone but the Jooz who run the media?
I feel the same way, the US has to date been the best friend and ally they could have asked for, but you see lots of Israelis spitting on their support and brushing it off as insubstantial, and lots of right-wing Israelis buying into the Tea Party rhetoric about Obama being an anti-American Muslim in secret. On the other hand I also feel Americans don't have much appreciation for the benefits they receive out of the relationship- tremendously juicy intelligence info on terrorist and hostile government activity, valuable commercial and military technologies, strong trade and research ties, and an island in the Middle East which represents America's secular, pluralistic democratic values to a far greater extent than any other country in the region, as flawed as it is. They stand on the front lines against a great deal of extremism, and to simply abandon them part and parcel would be like abandoning Czechoslovakia to the Nazis.
The $3 billion dollars in military assistance the US provides every year is no small chunk of change, but it represents a small fraction of Israel's net GDP and an even tinier fraction of the US economy. For comparison, the US provides Egypt alone with something like $2.5 billion in annual assistance, almost as much as Israel receives. Personally I'm leaning against the US continuing to provide this assistance, because it's not really necessary, it allows for undue accusations that somehow Israel's US backing gives it an unfair advantage against its vastly more numerous Russian-backed enemies, and it could help force Israel to spend less money on settlement construction and more on its legally accepted priorities.
If you have a better explanation why 1000 Palestinian deaths in a two-way conflict sparks widespread outrage in Muslim streets, but 1,000,000 Christian Sudanese deaths hardly warrant the raise of an eyebrow, then do tell. I believe Arab nationalism is also a significant factor in the conflict, but I think religion is the dominant factor which kills the spirit of compromise and understanding. For Israel's part I believe religion also plays a significant factor in that its religious right is the one creating most of the provocations and settling on designated Palestinian lands, whereas Israel's secular left is the dominant force calling for peace and compromise with the Palestinians. They're in negotiations right now under John Kerry's oversight after many years of stalling, and it's said a preliminary result could be a major Israeli withdrawal from most of the West Bank, so let's cross our fingers.
This is off topic.
Start an evil Joo thread if you want to talk about the Jewish Conspiracy to destroy America.
Start an evil Joo thread if you want to talk about the Jewish Conspiracy to destroy America.
Jumerica, I think you mean.
Heh Heh.
That's a good one.
"Jew Jew is better than Woo Woo."
Od sciforums saying.
That's a good one.
"Jew Jew is better than Woo Woo."
Od sciforums saying.
Originally Posted by CptBork Post #414 :
- quote - "Why confront when you can always appease?" - unquote -
Originally Posted by dmoe Post #419
CptBork, seemed to work for me - in dealing with you!
CptBork, yyuryyubicuryy,...appease = CptBork, smug?, happy?, self-satisfied?...?
...confront = CptBork, defensive?, retaliatory?, petulant?, name-calling?...?
At any rate, "The Syrian "Revolution": A Farce from Beginning to End" - the "Farce" is ongoing...
I, dmoe, would rather confront and help with ending that "Farce" - than to appease and aid in the perpetration of that "Farce"!
- quote - "Why confront when you can always appease?" - unquote -
Originally Posted by dmoe Post #419
CptBork, seemed to work for me - in dealing with you!
CptBork, yyuryyubicuryy,...appease = CptBork, smug?, happy?, self-satisfied?...?
...confront = CptBork, defensive?, retaliatory?, petulant?, name-calling?...?
At any rate, "The Syrian "Revolution": A Farce from Beginning to End" - the "Farce" is ongoing...
I, dmoe, would rather confront and help with ending that "Farce" - than to appease and aid in the perpetration of that "Farce"!
Bells
Staff member
I have to ask, what is with the yokel speak?
As it stands, everyone knows Assad's did it. And it isn't the first time.
Perhaps you expected a similar attack as we saw on the Kurds? Assad has probably realised a small localised chemical weapon attacks is better. Then bombing the crap out of it after ensures the evidence degrades much faster, as he refuses the UN access to the site for 5 days to make sure nothing is found. Unfortunately for Assad, the doctors and independent doctors working there (such as MSF) have probably been smuggling tissue samples out of Syria for testing and those tests are showing that they have been using chemical weapons for a while now, in more controlled and smaller areas.
Assad and Russia have provided no proof that the rebels even have chemical weapons. Absolutely none. Assad's forces also bombed the site where this latest chemical attack occurred, and then denied UN inspectors access to the site for days, during which time, all evidence will have degraded. Hardly the actions of a man or regime that is free of guilt. What it shows is someone destroying evidence.
You are the one who brought it up. Do you doubt that they are building one? Personally I suspect they are not that far off.
Considering they have been using chemical weapons for a while now, at what point should the world react to gross violations of international law and human rights conventions?
This is not a mythical search for WMD's like in Iraq. This is confirmation of WMD's being used as we fret idly by. Which is what we are doing. The "red line" of what is legal in war keeps moving. Where does it stop? This is not made up. This isn't a possibility that he has WMD's. He is using WMD's against a civilian population because they don't want him in power and wanted a democracy - free elections and all the things we take for granted - remember? That was how all of this started, when he had his troops open fire on peaceful demonstrators asking for elections.
So when will it stop? How far does he have to go before we deem it unacceptable enough?
Didn't your gut also listen to Alex Jones during the Boston bombing? So much so that you started posting from his site, about US involvement? You'll excuse me if I don't pay attention to your gut.
And frankly, since when should we listen to who hates us to see how we should act? By we, I mean the West.
We have a situation where a man with a massive stockpile of chemical weapons is using those weapons against his own civilian population because they wanted to have free and fair elections and their desire for that ultimately led to the civil war we are seeing today. He has been using chemical weapons against his civilian for months.
At what point do we do the right thing?
I'm sorry, chemical weapons being used against a civilian population. How fucking long do we need? As he comments in his twitter feed, it's been 2.5 years and over 100,000 dead. We are hardly going to be charging in without thinking. But hey, we pontificated and fretted during Rwanda as well. Nearly a million dead before we realised that perhaps we should do something. Is that the magic marker for intervention? After all, if using WMD's against a civilian population cowering in their homes doesn't warrant intervention, is there a point where we will intervene? And at what point is it?
Again, coming from the guy who quoted Alex Jones in his zeal to blame the US Government for the Boston bombing, you'll excuse me if I have a quiet chuckle at you accusing anyone of paranoia.
Where did I advocate bombing Syria "good and flat"? Where? Can you provide a link to where I said such a thing?
You don't think it's more complex? You don't think the involvement and supply of arms to Assad by Russia and China's support does not make it more complex? You don't think the use of chemical weapons does not make it more complex? You don't think over 100,000 dead people makes it more complex?
Did you miss your ride on the short bus the last couple of years?
There is no maybe. I provided links above. I know you read French, so it won't be an issue for you.
You don't want him to respond because the opposition and the victims are Muslims and then you criticise him for not acting sooner. My my..
You actually think a guy who is willing to murder his own people with chemical weapons, who ordered his troops to open fire on peaceful demonstrators asking for democratic elections, which led to this civil war, is going to listen to a phone call from Obama and stop?
Wow.. Diplomacy.. With the Russians supplying him with weapons and with the Russians vetoing every single attempt at diplomacy and sanctions against him, you are actually going to run with this argument... A man who ignored the demands of the fucking world to stop.. You think he would have stopped with a single phone call from Obama.
Refer to my point above.
What the Gulf War has shown me is that you are cowards who refuse to act when you are meant to act - you know - WMD's are actually used and instead prefer to wave your dicks around saying how great you are and when push comes to shove and you are meant to act when WMD's are used (you know, illegal under international law and all that and gross human rights violations and a war crime), you run like scared children.
Perhaps you should go back to reading Alex Jones' infowars and looking for blackwater types.
Writes like one, acts like one, maybe he is one.
Future Presidents: Redux
Future Presidents: Redux
Students of political history are taking note this week of a newly-erected signpost along the Beltway obstacle course that is the United States government. Last week I noted that Rep. Peter King (R-NY) had given President Obama some sort of abstractly perverse gift of macabre memory, an episode for the ages.
It is time to explain that joke.
Forty years ago, as Nixon faced growing heat in the Watergate scandal, the argument emerged that his defiance of investigators was in defense of future presidents. Somewhere in there, and I believe it was with Jerry terHorst, the press secretary for President Ford, Doonesbury put a twist on that with the idea of protecting future press secretaries.
And, actually, it's something of a running joke. Mr. terHorst's book on the Ford administration is called Gerald Ford and the Future of the Presidency, though more to the point is the idea that pretty much every president, at least since then, has fallen back to concern for future presidents at some point. Whenever a president is in serious trouble, the White House digs in on behalf of future presidents. It's very nearly a ritual.
Except, well ....
Okay, look, I get that there are too many rituals in politics. I get that perspectives and methods ossify inside the Beltway. I get that there is a new conservative insurgency in electoral politics that wants to break these slavish bonds. And that's fine. But, to the one, Rep. King is no freshman backbencher. And, to the other, Bill Kristol and James Caesar are hardly newcomers to the Beltway punditry.
Wait, what? Rep. Pete King of New York? Bill Kristol? And who's James Caesar?
This is a very perverse application of the future presidents argument.
And, come on, what is up with the idea that after all these years of complaining about the "imperial" Obama presidency, now Republicans want the White House to get all unilateral?
Well, okay, let's be fair. No, it's not "Republicans". It's just Rep. King, right?
It is important to note that Byron York, chief political correspondent for The Washington Examiner, wrote the above specifically under an opinion banner, discussing Republican reasons for rejecting President Obama's request for authorization to strike against Assad. A hard sell, indeed.
Which is why it's Kristol making the push for James Caesar, whose article posted at First Things instead of Weekly Standard—where he also publishes regularly.
Even if the whole point is some overly elaborate scheme by longtime players like King and Kristol to set up a talking point for after the Republicans refuse authorization—Look! Obama diminished the office for future presidents! Waaah!—it seems a perverse ruse.
No, really, this is Caesar's argument:
This is strange, to say the least.
We may well be witnessing a transformation in political history, when concern for future presidents becomes a tool of the opposition.
Okay, it probably won't amount to a full reversal, but there is something significant, at least in the wonky nerdfields of political-historical scholarship, about the multivalent and transdynamic irony in effect. And part of that irony is that we might say it is time to shatter the Beltway cycles, rituals, and customs that have leached the once-fertile soil of our American promise, but this isn't such a breaking. Rather, it is a curious annexation. It seems odd that any opposition would plant its flag on this hill, but these are new and curious times.
____________________
Notes:
Lesniewski, Niels. "Peter King Says Obama Is 'Abdicating His Responsibility' on Syria". GOPpers. August 31, 2013. Blogs.RollCall.com. September 3, 2013. http://blogs.rollcall.com/goppers/peter-king-says-obama-is-abdicating-his-responsibility-on-syria/
York, Byron. "Why many Republicans won't support Obama on Syria attack". The Washington Examiner. September 2, 2013. http://washingtonexaminer.com/why-m...support-obama-on-syria-attack/article/2535061
Kristol, William. "Congressional Republicans: Hail Ceaser!" The Blog. September 2, 2013. WeeklyStandard.com. September 3, 2013. http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/congressional-republicans-hail-ceaser_751563.html
Caesar, James. "To Authorize or Not to Authorize". Postmodern Conservative. September 1, 2013. FirstThings.com. September 3, 2013. http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/postmodernconservative/2013/09/01/to-authorize-or-not-to-authorize/
Future Presidents: Redux
Students of political history are taking note this week of a newly-erected signpost along the Beltway obstacle course that is the United States government. Last week I noted that Rep. Peter King (R-NY) had given President Obama some sort of abstractly perverse gift of macabre memory, an episode for the ages.
It is time to explain that joke.
Forty years ago, as Nixon faced growing heat in the Watergate scandal, the argument emerged that his defiance of investigators was in defense of future presidents. Somewhere in there, and I believe it was with Jerry terHorst, the press secretary for President Ford, Doonesbury put a twist on that with the idea of protecting future press secretaries.
And, actually, it's something of a running joke. Mr. terHorst's book on the Ford administration is called Gerald Ford and the Future of the Presidency, though more to the point is the idea that pretty much every president, at least since then, has fallen back to concern for future presidents at some point. Whenever a president is in serious trouble, the White House digs in on behalf of future presidents. It's very nearly a ritual.
Except, well ....
Okay, look, I get that there are too many rituals in politics. I get that perspectives and methods ossify inside the Beltway. I get that there is a new conservative insurgency in electoral politics that wants to break these slavish bonds. And that's fine. But, to the one, Rep. King is no freshman backbencher. And, to the other, Bill Kristol and James Caesar are hardly newcomers to the Beltway punditry.
Wait, what? Rep. Pete King of New York? Bill Kristol? And who's James Caesar?
Obama said he would seek an authorization for the use of military force against the Syrian regime in response to the widely-reported use of chemical weapons, but King, a New York Republican and former chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, blasted that move.
“President Obama is abdicating his responsibility as commander-in-chief and undermining the authority of future presidents. The President does not need Congress to authorize a strike on Syria. If Assad's use of chemical weapons against civilians deserves a military response, and I believe it does, and if the President is seeking congressional approval, then he should call Congress back into a special session at the earliest date,” King said in a statement. “The President doesn't need 535 Members of Congress to enforce his own redline.”
(Lesniewski)
“President Obama is abdicating his responsibility as commander-in-chief and undermining the authority of future presidents. The President does not need Congress to authorize a strike on Syria. If Assad's use of chemical weapons against civilians deserves a military response, and I believe it does, and if the President is seeking congressional approval, then he should call Congress back into a special session at the earliest date,” King said in a statement. “The President doesn't need 535 Members of Congress to enforce his own redline.”
(Lesniewski)
This is a very perverse application of the future presidents argument.
And, come on, what is up with the idea that after all these years of complaining about the "imperial" Obama presidency, now Republicans want the White House to get all unilateral?
Well, okay, let's be fair. No, it's not "Republicans". It's just Rep. King, right?
Some Republicans are so war-weary that they would be loathe to authorize any military action in the absence of an actual attack on the United States. When Sen. Rand Paul re-phrased John Kerry's words from Vietnam—Kerry famously asked, "How do you ask a man to be the last to die for a mistake?" which Paul changed to "How do you ask a man to be the first to die for a mistake?"—the senator from Kentucky was signaling that there is virtually no way lawmakers like him will ever support a Syrian initiative.
How many Republicans hold some or all of these beliefs? Quite a few. Perhaps in anticipation of a close vote, a new argument is circulating among pro-interventionists which says that protecting the prerogatives of future presidents is so important that Republicans should support Obama's Syrian action even if there is no good case for doing so.
Rejecting Obama could permanently weaken the presidency, argues political scientist James Ceaser in an article cited by influential conservative commentator William Kristol. Therefore, Republicans should vote to authorize force "even if they think that the president's policy will prove ineffective, do no good, waste money, or entail unforeseen risks…even if they think he has gotten the nation into this situation by blunders, fecklessness, arrogance, or naiveté; and ... even if, and especially, if they have no confidence in his judgment."
That will be a very hard sell for Republicans.
(York)
How many Republicans hold some or all of these beliefs? Quite a few. Perhaps in anticipation of a close vote, a new argument is circulating among pro-interventionists which says that protecting the prerogatives of future presidents is so important that Republicans should support Obama's Syrian action even if there is no good case for doing so.
Rejecting Obama could permanently weaken the presidency, argues political scientist James Ceaser in an article cited by influential conservative commentator William Kristol. Therefore, Republicans should vote to authorize force "even if they think that the president's policy will prove ineffective, do no good, waste money, or entail unforeseen risks…even if they think he has gotten the nation into this situation by blunders, fecklessness, arrogance, or naiveté; and ... even if, and especially, if they have no confidence in his judgment."
That will be a very hard sell for Republicans.
(York)
It is important to note that Byron York, chief political correspondent for The Washington Examiner, wrote the above specifically under an opinion banner, discussing Republican reasons for rejecting President Obama's request for authorization to strike against Assad. A hard sell, indeed.
Which is why it's Kristol making the push for James Caesar, whose article posted at First Things instead of Weekly Standard—where he also publishes regularly.
Even if the whole point is some overly elaborate scheme by longtime players like King and Kristol to set up a talking point for after the Republicans refuse authorization—Look! Obama diminished the office for future presidents! Waaah!—it seems a perverse ruse.
No, really, this is Caesar's argument:
Republicans should support some version of the authorization of force resolution. They should do so even if they think that the President's policy will prove ineffective, do no good, waste money, or entail unforeseen risks; they should do so even if they think he has gotten the nation into this situation by blunders, fecklessness, arrogance, or naiveté; and they should so even if, and especially, if they have no confidence in his judgment. The simple fact is that the nation and our allies will be at further risk if the world sees a presidency that is weakened and that has no credibility to act. Partisans may be tempted to see such a result as condign punishment for the President's misjudgments; they may feel that he deserves to pay the price for his hypocrisy and cheap and demagogic attacks on his predecessor. But at the end of the day, Republicans need to rise above such temptations; the stakes are too high. The weaker the president's credibility on the world scene, the more the need to swallow and do what will not weaken it further. President Obama is the only president we have. That remains the overriding fact.
And there is the important matter of the future—a future that may one day have a Republican in the presidency. The precedent of setting too low a threshold for blocking presidential initiative in foreign affairs is unwise. Of course Congress has the right, even the obligation, to stop action that legislators believe would be disastrous. But short of that, it is wiser to maintain a good deal of discretion in the presidency. In the case at hand, all of the hyperbole about war aside, the real objection is that the President's policy will prove to be ineffective or humiliating, not disastrous. That is not sufficient reason to weaken the discretion of the president or open the door next time to more gratuitous partisanship by the Democrats.
And there is the important matter of the future—a future that may one day have a Republican in the presidency. The precedent of setting too low a threshold for blocking presidential initiative in foreign affairs is unwise. Of course Congress has the right, even the obligation, to stop action that legislators believe would be disastrous. But short of that, it is wiser to maintain a good deal of discretion in the presidency. In the case at hand, all of the hyperbole about war aside, the real objection is that the President's policy will prove to be ineffective or humiliating, not disastrous. That is not sufficient reason to weaken the discretion of the president or open the door next time to more gratuitous partisanship by the Democrats.
This is strange, to say the least.
We may well be witnessing a transformation in political history, when concern for future presidents becomes a tool of the opposition.
Okay, it probably won't amount to a full reversal, but there is something significant, at least in the wonky nerdfields of political-historical scholarship, about the multivalent and transdynamic irony in effect. And part of that irony is that we might say it is time to shatter the Beltway cycles, rituals, and customs that have leached the once-fertile soil of our American promise, but this isn't such a breaking. Rather, it is a curious annexation. It seems odd that any opposition would plant its flag on this hill, but these are new and curious times.
____________________
Notes:
Lesniewski, Niels. "Peter King Says Obama Is 'Abdicating His Responsibility' on Syria". GOPpers. August 31, 2013. Blogs.RollCall.com. September 3, 2013. http://blogs.rollcall.com/goppers/peter-king-says-obama-is-abdicating-his-responsibility-on-syria/
York, Byron. "Why many Republicans won't support Obama on Syria attack". The Washington Examiner. September 2, 2013. http://washingtonexaminer.com/why-m...support-obama-on-syria-attack/article/2535061
Kristol, William. "Congressional Republicans: Hail Ceaser!" The Blog. September 2, 2013. WeeklyStandard.com. September 3, 2013. http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/congressional-republicans-hail-ceaser_751563.html
Caesar, James. "To Authorize or Not to Authorize". Postmodern Conservative. September 1, 2013. FirstThings.com. September 3, 2013. http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/postmodernconservative/2013/09/01/to-authorize-or-not-to-authorize/
Main reason for war seems to be that people won't believe that America is tough any more unless they bomb something.
Look, we believe you are tough. Now piss off home. Please!
Look, we believe you are tough. Now piss off home. Please!
Bells
Staff member
If that was the case, then the US would have done so already by now.
The fact that Obama had even refused to arm Assad's opposition, shows just how much he did not want to get involved. Over 100,000 dead over 2.5 years and no intervention. He still hasn't armed the rebels. Do you even understand the context of his "red line" comment and speech? Know why he said it? It was so that he would not intervene. His "red line" comment was to show the world that it would only intervene if the chemical weapons were used:
Do you know why it is important to intervene now? Do you have any idea of the very real implication if we do not respond to his use of chemical weapons? At all?
Get it now? Understand why intervention is vitally important after this? At all? Or does it need to be spelled out with funny pictures and lame jokes?
Freedland goes on to make a very good point, and one that perhaps the world should keep in mind in the future, if another despot decides to become a mass killer. Because where we went wrong was to not intervene from the start.