Exposed: The Obama Invasion of Syria

[festive1]

So IS the Obama administration invading Syria?

No.

A fiew air and missle strikes are certainly not an "invasion".

Invasion would be to send troops in for the purpose of conquest.

Here, the purpose of the missle and air strikes clearly is to "punish" a regime for it`s use of chemical weapons.

The words "invasion", "no evidence" and "Al Quaida" are simply thrown arround by the Alex Jones braindead conspiracy club and the Ron Paul friends of sociopaths society.

And normally we're on the same page politically...
It's not the US's job to police Syria about their use of chemical weapons. That's the UN's and the ICC's job. Any military action against Syria, no matter how limited, would have very serious repercussions that would inevitably drag the US into further military action. The rebels in Syria are being aided by Al Queda. The Syrian government is backed by Russia, and Putin has made it clear that if strikes occur Russia will aid Syria. There is no window for a pro-US agenda no matter how the civil war shakes out, but somehow the thinking is we should do it anyway... Because bombing Syria would open a door for a pro-US agenda? Nay. I don't get it. It seems pretty simple that if you bomb a country, they aren't going to like you very much regardless if they liked the previous regime or not.

It's about "saving face." Obama drew a line in the sand with the use of chemical weapons-which is quite hypocritical considering the US's recent use of chemical weapons (white phosphorus in Iraq). It's akin to me getting pissed at my kids and telling them, "If you do that again, I'm throwing your toys in the trash!" They do it again, and, obviously, I'm not going to throw their toys away, but I end up looking the fool for making a threat that I cannot follow through on. It was/is a serious diplomatic blunder on Obama's part.
Add to this the fact that the overwhelming majority of Americans do not want the US to get involved, and are contacting their representatives to tell them so, and the representatives don't all seem to be listening. I know two of mine aren't. And you best believe that the $80,000+ my congressman received in campaign donations from the defense industry is probably why. It's becoming evident to more and more Americans that our democracy has been bought and sold to the oligarchs. It's depressing.

[Autumnlicious]

I found this on Reddit and believe it to reasonably summarize my views on Syria and geopolitics.

http://www.reddit.com/r/TrueAskReddit/co...ly/cc432ts


This is all Realpolitik in a proxy war between two fairly nasty sides.

Oh, and John Kerry is a fucking incompetant vegetable at keeping diplomatic face and candor.

This would've never gotten as embarassing if Hillary was still running the State Dept. But she retired and we got Colonel Ketchup instead....

[Anomalocaris]

Oh, and John Kerry is a fucking incompetant vegetable at keeping diplomatic face and candor.

This would've never gotten as embarassing if Hillary was still running the State Dept. But she retired and we got Colonel Ketchup instead....

This "line in the sand" that we dared syria to cross, but which in fact is diseasterous for us to reply if he did, was drawn under Hillary's watch.

The main strength of hilary as Secretsry of State was her ability to phrase cocky amateur ideologue's world view, a conceited lack of necessary cunning, in ivy league commencement language. Her pivot to Asia was the second most amateurishly conceived, and potentially the most diseasterously executed, strategic realignment in the 21st century.

Amaerican foreign policy have been conducted solely by personally ambitious rank amateurs since the end of the Cold War, and in frustration of their lack of success, they've not learned the need for some cool professional chess playing, but instead conceived of a want of more ill conceived boldness better protected by more learned sounding language.

[Minimalist]

Too on point to pass up.

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/bo...0%28164%29

WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)—Secretary of State John Kerry said today that he was “shocked and flabbergasted” that the Russians heeded his suggestion about Syria’s chemical weapons, telling reporters, “After four decades in public life, this is the first time someone has taken me seriously.”

[Something completely different]

The USofA should stop being the "world police"

And normally we're on the same page politically...
It's not the US's job to police Syria about their use of chemical weapons.

Is it really? And if not who should?

It might be so that the US has a history of doing some very ugly things in foreign countries. But one should not ignore the good it has done. I remind everyone who keeps up coming with that "non world police argument" that if the US had for example not intervened in Bosnia during the 1990s, whilest the European nations were sitting on their asses and not doing anything, that the Serbian militias and army would have probably murdered the entire Bosniac population of the Balkans and would have marched right into Croatia. Thereby creating a vicious fascist state with a large army controling the entire Balkan from the Greek to the Austrian and Hungarian borders. People in Europe tend to forget that.
Also the first US military intervention in Iraq during 1990 was completly justified and as clean and human as a war can be. Back then the US was celebrated for it`s success. One should also remember that right after the US pulled out of Libanon during the 1980s the civil war in that country flamed up again and became even more brutal than it had been before.
So it may be true that the US had undergone military interventions with the sole goal of defending US interests with force. But one should not forget that the US has also intervened with the goal of keeping peace.
There are hardly any goals to be achieved in a war with Syria which would in any way benefit the US`s geopolitical interests, besides maybe a weakening of Iran. And most important of all, the nation which pushes the hardest for a military intervention in Syria is not even the US, but France.

Which brings me to the question if the US really is the worlds police? I dont know how much news concerning Europe you receive in the US and Australia, but almoust every European nation interveins by military means in it`s former colonies when things go sour there. France has interveined in Ivory Coast twice during the past 10 years, every time because the President of Ivory Coast disregarded election results and made himself a dictator. France has interveined in Mali, Niger and various other countries in Northeast Africa and has more troops stationed on that continent than the US. France has also interveined in Lebanon when things got ugly there and since Syria is a former French Colony, it explains why France is pushing so hard for a intervention. And one has to say that they are doing a good job by spending billions on aid for their former colonies.
And not only them, the dutch also have the navy stationed arround the coasts of Africa and regulary interveine especialy in Congo. Even the Portugese, who are a neutral country which does not participate in wars has sent peacekeepers to it`s former colonies.

To think that the US is the only country in the world that goes for the military option in foreign countries to inforce their interests and democracy is a myth.

That's the UN's and the ICC's job.

A bunch of useless twats who have never helped to bring peace into a single warzone.

Any military action against Syria, no matter how limited, would have very serious repercussions that would inevitably drag the US into further military action. The rebels in Syria are being aided by Al Queda. The Syrian government is backed by Russia, and Putin has made it clear that if strikes occur Russia will aid Syria. There is no window for a pro-US agenda no matter how the civil war shakes out, but somehow the thinking is we should do it anyway... Because bombing Syria would open a door for a pro-US agenda? Nay. I don't get it. It seems pretty simple that if you bomb a country, they aren't going to like you very much regardless if they liked the previous regime or not.

No one is taking sides, the goal is to destroy Assads chemical weapon option and not to side with the opposition.
And Russia is bluffing. Russia has recently alienated various of it`s allies through foolish actions. Venezuela, China and various nations in central Asia are currently reevaluating their friendship with Russia. So Russia is simply interested in showing that it can stick to a friend and it is interested in it`s billion dollar defence contract. Other than that, Russia does not have the logistical capabilities to support the Assad goverment with any weapons. In fact, every arms shipment to Syria would be controlled by authorities in Zyprus and transport by air is not an option since that would have to go over Turkey.

And concerning the US image, the image would be worse if you would simply stand there and do nothing.

It's about "saving face." Obama drew a line in the sand with the use of chemical weapons-which is quite hypocritical considering the US's recent use of chemical weapons (white phosphorus in Iraq). It's akin to me getting pissed at my kids and telling them, "If you do that again, I'm throwing your toys in the trash!" They do it again, and, obviously, I'm not going to throw their toys away, but I end up looking the fool for making a threat that I cannot follow through on. It was/is a serious diplomatic blunder on Obama's part.

If it were about saving face then France would not be as engaged in this as it is right now. And I really hate the white phosphorus argument that claims that white phosphorus is a chemical weapon. That is an argument often used by the antisemetic antizionist asshole crowd to critizise Israel.

White phosphorus is not a chemical weapon. The entire argument claiming that white phosphorus is a chemical weapon is based on the fact that a chemical reaction takes place when the substance catches fire.
Using the that line of arguing even a simple firearm is a chemical weapon as soon as the gunpowder ignites, and so is a molotov coctail or even a simple can of gasoline.

Add to this the fact that the overwhelming majority of Americans do not want the US to get involved, and are contacting their representatives to tell them so, and the representatives don't all seem to be listening. I know two of mine aren't. And you best believe that the $80,000+ my congressman received in campaign donations from the defense industry is probably why. It's becoming evident to more and more Americans that our democracy has been bought and sold to the oligarchs. It's depressing.

A goverment which is incapable of making decisions which are opposed by the majority of the population is a goverment incapable of making hard but nececery decisions. The vast majority of the French population opposed giving up the French colonial empire, the vast majority of all European nations opposed abollishing the death penalty during the 60s and 70s.
I know only one nation which is a direct democracy and that is Switzerland, and it is no suprise that Switzerland was the last European country to abolish the death penalty in 1989 and that in Switzerland women who were pregnant out of wedlock were forced to have an abortion and to be steralised until 1979. A direct democracy and always kissing the entire populations ass merely gives power to the idiotic masses who are incapable of running anything. A society needs electable elites who can make right decisions which are uncomfortable for the majority hence it has to be a representative republic and not a direct democracy.

[Minimalist]

White phosphorus is not a chemical weapon.

A distinction utterly lost on the victims. Of course, the same can be said of an artillery shell or rifle bullet.

[Something completely different]

White phosphorus is not a chemical weapon.

A distinction utterly lost on the victims. Of course, the same can be said of an artillery shell or rifle bullet.

The mere fact that a weapon inflicts pain does not have an impact on the weapon being outlawed or not. Gunshot wounds dont kill most of their victims but leave them physicaly disabled. Napalm burns you even slower than white phosphorus. Depleted Uranium causes radioactive dust to ramain on the battlefield and to harm civilians after combat has ended.

The destinction made here is that Sarin gas, which may not be as painfull or as gorey or as spectacular as everything listed above, has the capablility to kill 1400 people with a single strike.

[festive1]

White phosphorus is not a chemical weapon.

A distinction utterly lost on the victims. Of course, the same can be said of an artillery shell or rifle bullet.

Not to mention a distinction lost on the international chemical weapons ban, as white phosphorus is included in said ban.
I'll respond to your points, TGAC, momentarily.

[Jackalope]

White phosphorus is not a chemical weapon.

No, it is not. It's classified as an incendiary.

It does, however, produce toxic fumes. Whether or not it's use in warfare is lawful under international convention and agreement depends wholly on how it's used. Using it as a weapon against civilians, and using it in a way to leverage the toxic effects of the chemical reaction are certainly not acceptable uses. Use as an anti-materiel weapon, or against military targets is not prohibited (provided that the use is as an incendiary, not a toxin). Using WP to gas people (not it's intended function), would fall under chemical weapon conventions, even though it is not classified as such.

That being said, it's my view that using white phosphorus as an anti-personnel weapon in any capacity is unnecessarily cruel and barbaric. It's nasty, nasty stuff - great for destroying equipment, but on people, I can think of few things that would be worse.

In my time in the army, had I ever been ordered to use WP against people, I would have refused - fuck the consequences.


ETA - there is conflicting information in Army training materials as to the policy and legality of using WP against personnel. Some newer materials state unequivocally that it's use against personnel is prohibited, older materials are less clear. I vaguely recall that I was trained that we were told that WP was to be used only as an anti-materiel weapon. Then again, what is policy, and what is actually done in warfare are not necessarily the same thing.

[Anomalocaris]

It might be so that the US has a history of doing some very ugly things in foreign countries. But one should not ignore the good it has done.

Good, let's buy the US a drink, and while patting it on the back take the opportunity to drill it into its head that past good is no excuse for present and future conceits and blunders.

---

Is it really? And if not who should?

No one should. It is not all together clear that the world in the long run could benefit from a hegemon that overstayed its welcome.

---

To think that the US is the only country in the world that goes for the military option in foreign countries to inforce their interests and democracy is a myth.

Except the checks and balances for the US role in the world is currently the most lacking of all.