Exposed: The Obama Invasion of Syria

[festive1]

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.

Intervening in a former colony, that has strong diplomatic and often strong cultural ties (most former colonies use the language of their former colonizers as a common tongue, for example) to it's former colonizer is very different than the US intervening in a country. If there is a country that should get involved in Syria, it's France. Simply because they rely on the US for our military shouldn't mean that when they want to intervene somewhere that we have to do it for them.
If you want to discuss the humanitarian side of things: The US doesn't give two shits that hundreds of thousands have been killed and millions displaced in Syria's civil war up to this point. The US only cares about the several hundreds who were killed by chemical weapons. It isn't about a humanitarian mission to save lives, it's about the line in the sand drawn by the US's administration about the use of chemical weapons.

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.

Perhaps, but wouldn't the ICC and UN peacekeeping forces be a better option? Perhaps the global community should bolster their credibility, forces, and options when it comes to intervening in situations like Syria. Perhaps part of the reason they are a "bunch of useless twats" is because they are restricted from intervening in meaningful ways and the US always seems to jump the gun before there is a chance for them to get involved...

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.

I'm not so sure that I buy that Russia is bluffing, and frankly I wouldn't want to see the US call them on their bluff, assuming it is one. What's Turkey going to do exactly? Shoot down Russian aircrafts bringing supplies to Syria? That seems unlikely at best. Russia sticking by Syria in the event of a US attack, would bolster their standing with the allies they have so recently alienated, but demonstrating they do have their allies' backs.

Bombing Assad controlled military facilities, even if it is just to destroy the chemical weapons, will still aid the rebels regardless if that is the intention of the bombings or not. It's still the "enemy of my enemy is my friend" sort of thing.

In regards to the US's image... If the US is truly a pillar of "freedom," "justice," and "democracy," then we wouldn't bomb other sovereign states who have done us no measurable harm. We would let justice be served in a court of law, where it ought to be, rather than being vigilantes serving out our own "idea" of justice around the globe (in quotes, because it's very apparent to me that the administration's idea of justice is very different from my own, and many of my fellow citizens). And we would listen to the voice and will of our people as superseding our "global public image."

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.

https://www.fas.org/programs/bio/factshe...horus.html

Protocol III of The Convention on Prohibition or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May be Deemed to be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects (CCW) prohibits and restricts the use of incendiary weapons in civilian populations. It defines an incendiary weapon as "any weapon or munition which is primarily designed to set fire to objects or to cause burn injury to persons"; this definition excludes "munitions which may have incidental effects, such as illuminants, tracers, smoke or signaling systems." Under that qualification, WP is not necessarily considered an "incendiary weapon" if it incidentally sets buildings on fire. The United States has ratified other protocols and amendments of the CCW, but it has not ratified Protocol III.

WP sure sounds like an "incendiary weapon" to me. It seems that WP does have indiscriminate effects when used in a populated area, as was the case in Iraq. And it's odd that the US hasn't ratified this particular section of the Chemical Weapons Convention.
You can throw around terms like "anti-Semitic" 'til the end of time, but sometimes, people who happen to be anti-Semitic, are not wrong in their classification of what constitutes a chemical weapon. You should not pose the argument that WP is not a chemical weapon on the basis that some anti-Semitic people believe this. As you seem to do here:

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.

One can support Israel's right to exist and be critical of their politics and use of military forces.
Ultimately, this is a semantics battle, I say WP is a chemical weapon, you don't have to agree with me, and we'd be at a standstill because we both have good evidence to support our respective side. Let's compromise and call WP, a weapon of questionable standing.

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.

I'd argue that in the case of military action against Syria, it is worth noting and listening to the public's opinion. This is not just a very loud, small segment of the population arguing against it. I've heard reports as high as 97% of representative's constituents speaking out against any military action. That's left, right, and center, unanimous against this, that NEVER fucking happens in US politics. I'm not going to be fussed to look up the public opinion poll data for the examples you present, but my money's on the public being somewhat more evenly divided than 97% to 3%. Now that's just one representative's district, mind you. According to this poll: http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013...n-20-years
The overall public in favor of intervention in Syria is just 36%, which is still highly unfavorable. 2/3rds of the country united about ANYTHING? Doesn't happen.