|
Post by michaelw on Apr 11, 2017 9:37:14 GMT -5
www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-24024788^ Here's a piece written after Assad used chemical weapons back in 2013. It hits the same points you were hitting, with regard to the Holocaust and World War I. And that's noted after asking the same question others have been getting at: what's so different about chemical weapons? I do understand the historical points and do appreciate them, to some degree. But to me, it's still more psychological (and maybe cultural, as well) more than strictly logical. It reminds me of the Indian who's horrified by the American eating a cow, who in turn is horrified by the Korean eating a dog, who in turn is horrified by X, Y, and Z, and so on, when in reality it all amounts to pretty much the same thing (eating an animal). The horror is real of course, but the distinction isn't really as meaningful as people would like to believe it is. With regard to chemical weapons, obviously there's a tradition of holding them to be special, going back a long time. And I don't think any reasonable person could casually dismiss the suffering inflicted by such weapons. But really, if the guiding principle here is that we should be a little more humane, a little more caring, especially toward children or civilians, then to me the special focus on chemical weapons doesn't advance that cause nearly enough. We'd advance that cause much more by offering more support for civilians in toto, not focusing so much on specific weapons, IMO.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Apr 11, 2017 9:44:08 GMT -5
Let's allow that the taboo on chemical weapons--as compared to traditional munitions--is based somewhat on emotion and not-always-justified assumptions about chemical weapons.
Question: what's the advantage of undoing that taboo, as compared to leaving it intact? Because imo, if it's successfully broken, if enough people see no difference, than chemical weapons might eventually be used more frequently. And ultimately, that just expands arsenals. It doesn't diminish them. How is that a good thing?
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Apr 11, 2017 10:08:30 GMT -5
Let's allow that the taboo on chemical weapons--as compared to traditional munitions--is based somewhat on emotion and not-always-justified assumptions about chemical weapons. Question: what's the advantage of undoing that taboo, as compared to leaving it intact? Because imo, if it's successfully broken, if enough people see no difference, than chemical weapons might eventually be used more frequently. And ultimately, that just expands arsenals. It doesn't diminish them. How is that a good thing? Well to be clear, what I'm advocating is a more general revulsion toward targeting civilians. It means more parity in how we view chemical weapons vs other weapons, but it doesn't have to mean that the level of revulsion we feel toward chemical weapons goes down, necessarily. I still think Assad shouldn't be using chemical weapons, of course. But you know, let's say the red line was something else. Remember one of the key events that triggered the Syrian civil war in the first place? It was the torture and killing of a thirteen-year old by Assad's security forces, right? Let's say that's the red line, in addition to chemical weapons. If the world had responded to that, the same way some would like to respond to Assad's gassing, that would quite possibly mean less usage of chemical weapons in Syria. Ultimately, I just don't think the taboo is going to lead much of anywhere, especially in Syria. Assad's not doing opinion polls to see how many Americans oppose the use of Sarin. I don't know if he even cares about the missile attack, necessarily. It's certainly thinkable that he feels largely vindicated, no?
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Apr 12, 2017 15:27:06 GMT -5
Ultimately, I just don't think the taboo is going to lead much of anywhere, especially in Syria. Assad's not doing opinion polls to see how many Americans oppose the use of Sarin. I don't know if he even cares about the missile attack, necessarily. It's certainly thinkable that he feels largely vindicated, no? Pardon, but the taboo on chemical weapons has already led somewhere. It's existed since after WWI and for the most part, countries haven't returned to any sort of widespread usage of such weapons during war, civil or otherwise. Obviously, the Nazis using them in the Holocaust is a big exception, but I think it's fair to say that ultimately this only strengthened the taboo. On balance, this is a good thing, the existence of this taboo. My problem here is that the arguments I'm seeing would weaken it. Why? Granted, dead is dead. But when one particular avenue (two, if biologics are included) of mass killing has been successfully marginalized, isn't it better for mankind in general to keep it that way? In other news, Russia vetoes the UN Security Council Resolution condemning Syria for using chemical weapons: Those eight vetoes are since 2011.
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Apr 12, 2017 18:47:57 GMT -5
Pardon, but the taboo on chemical weapons has already led somewhere. It's existed since after WWI and for the most part, countries haven't returned to any sort of widespread usage of such weapons during war, civil or otherwise. Obviously, the Nazis using them in the Holocaust is a big exception, but I think it's fair to say that ultimately this only strengthened the taboo. On balance, this is a good thing, the existence of this taboo. My problem here is that the arguments I'm seeing would weaken it. Why? Granted, dead is dead. But when one particular avenue (two, if biologics are included) of mass killing has been successfully marginalized, isn't it better for mankind in general to keep it that way? Sure, I agree, countries for the most part haven't used chemical weapons. What does that taboo mean for a case like Syria though? I guess it means fairly widespread disapproval when such weapons are used, but I don't see anything here that's going to change the course of events in the big picture. I think that's why Assad calculated beforehand that such usage wouldn't cause him too much harm. You're saying you don't want to weaken the taboo against chemical weapons. As I said, I'm fine w/ disapproving of its usage in warfare. Heck, if anything I'd say the US should be more consistent with that, not less. But you're asking if it's better for mankind to keep the taboo, as a general rule? I guess it depends on what that means exactly. If the choice is between being relatively OK w/ Assad doing anything he wants to target civilians vs. being relatively OK w/ anything except chemical weapons (and bios), then sure, I might prefer the latter. There may be some arguments against it, namely that Assad might feel he can be more aggressive toward civilians as long as he leaves out the gas, but overall I'm sympathetic, sure. If Assad never uses chemical weapons again, I'm certainly willing to see that as a positive. But, if the choice is between keeping the current notion that chemical weapons are special vs. what I would rather see (expanding the taboo to include all attacks against civilians), then no. I don't prefer the former, necessarily. In the long term, I still think it's better if we move toward a more general rule that civilians in warfare are off-limits. And that means, necessarily, that chemical weapons lose their special status (unless we're just talking about using them against military personnel). Again, what if there had been a long-standing notion that civilians are simply off-limits, period? Would we even have gotten to this point?
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Apr 12, 2017 19:02:07 GMT -5
Sure, I agree, countries for the most part haven't used chemical weapons. What does that taboo mean for a case like Syria though? I guess it means fairly widespread disapproval when such weapons are used, but I don't see anything here that's going to change the course of events in the big picture. I think that's why Assad calculated beforehand that such usage wouldn't cause him too much harm. I think the goal should be to show him that he miscalculated. Severely. And I don't think that's a difficult goal to achieve. It's possible this strike achieved it, no? I'm not trying to argue that it did, or even that such is likely the case. Follow through is still needed, imo. And in that regard, if Assad stops using chemical weapons and indeed ultimately hands over the ones he still has, that would be a pretty good outcome. No?
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Apr 12, 2017 20:11:57 GMT -5
Sure, I'll be happy if Assad hands over his chemical weapons. That's not going to happen though, IMO. Is it possible this strike showed Assad that he severely miscalculated? I don't really see how. Is Assad tearing his hair out over losing that airfield?
|
|
|
Post by Don on Apr 13, 2017 5:44:23 GMT -5
The 1993 Chemical Weapons Treaty outlawed the use of CS gas, a sometimes-lethal chemical weapon, on the battlefield. CS gas was used a few months later at Waco and is still in use by police forces across the USA. Is that a rationale for other countries bombing the FBI and local police forces?
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Apr 13, 2017 7:05:47 GMT -5
Sure, I'll be happy if Assad hands over his chemical weapons. That's not going to happen though, IMO. Is it possible this strike showed Assad that he severely miscalculated? I don't really see how. Is Assad tearing his hair out over losing that airfield? He might be. How would you or I know? The strike did real damage. And it put Russia on the hot seat. We can't really say what all the consequences have been or will be for Assad. He's hardly in a perfectly secure position, after all.
|
|
|
Post by mikey on Dec 19, 2018 17:04:15 GMT -5
Oddly enough, President Trump has announced a full withdrawal from Syria beginning immediately. www.cnn.com/2018/12/19/middleeast/trump-troops-syria-npw-analysis-intl/index.htmlI don't know about anybody else, but I'm happy with this little "widespread surprise". But, I'm wondering just a little if this is a bit of a leverage play for the southern border fence. Seems odd to me, but just the same I'm happy we're getting out of there.
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Dec 20, 2018 11:23:00 GMT -5
This is such a bad move, I don't even know what to say. Who the f cares about "hush money" to Stormy. THIS actually matters, and this is really bad, if it actually happens. And the fact that people like Mattis and Bolton can't possibly be for immediate withdrawal, pops my bubble of comfort in Trump being surrounded by people who know better than he does. It's not just that ISIS still has significant enough numbers that they're not defeated, it's also hanging the Kurds out to dry, not to mention giving Russia and Iran space to maneuver. It's just such a bad decision.
I just hope it doesn't actually happen, that maybe Trump's people can knock some sense into him before troops actually leave.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 20, 2018 22:35:53 GMT -5
For once, ce, you and I are in complete agreement -- pulling out of Syria at this juncture is a disaster. And we can be pretty certain Mattis thinks it's a disaster (probably a lot of other things, too), based on his resignation letter. Because yes, Mattis, the last grown-up left in the White House, has resigned. It appears Syria was the final straw. Notice the dig about treating allies with respect, being clear-eyed about malign actors, not seeing eye to eye; note the lack of "it was an honor to serve you" or even a "respectfully yours." This is not a retirement. This is Mattis saying "fuck it, it's hopeless, you're a fool, I quit."
I hope there's a God and that he's watching out for us, because I think we are royally fucked.
Ce, I caught your little dig in there about Stormy, and it's pretty obvious what it meant: "see, now all of that other stuff you people are always getting so upset about is not a big deal, but this, THIS thing is a big deal! You people get upset about every little thing, but not me! I waited until now, when this happened, to get upset!"
Here is what you are missing. What you do--what all the remaining decent Trump apologists (by which I mean the ones who are not hopelessly racist and don't just want to blow everything up) tend to do--is to parse out each of Trump's many, many, many issues one by one, consider each standing alone as though no other issue exists, and with regard to each, grasp for excuses, blame everyone and everything in the world except Trump, and give him the fullest possible benefit of the doubt in every possible way, all the while pretending that no other similar issues exist. It's like pretending that the single cockroach you just saw skittle across the kitchen floor is the only one, forgetting about all the others you've seen scurrying about. One cockroach, pfff, big deal! So he paid off some porn stars just before the election, big deal!
But, see, like the cockroach in your kitchen, Trump's individual sins don't stand alone. There are a shit-ton of them, going back years. And each, large and small, reflects Trump's appalling character and utter unfitness for the Oval Office: he's a loose cannon, a liar, ignorant, greedy, unthinking, selfish, vengeful, listens to no one, cares for no one, doesn't think laws apply to him, has no value for or understanding of the rule of law, and would rather burn the house down than admit he's wrong or lose. And to compound it, he's willing and able--nay, determined--to fire anyone who stands in the way of his stupidity, impulsiveness, or corruption. No one can control him--and yet he holds the most powerful job in the world.
But actually, I think you know all that, whether you admit it or not. You just figured the grown-ups would keep him in check, and meanwhile you'd get your judges (some of whom, btw, are wholly unqualified, but never mind), and your precious tax plan that will put us a trillion or three further into hock, and so hey, what's the problem.
Here's the problem. Mattis and Kelly will soon be gone, the stock market is tanking, we are pulling out of Syria and leaving a fucking disaster for our allies (much to Putin's glee, btw), we are borrowing money from China to pay our farmers who are struggling solely because of Trump's ridiculous ill-advised tariffs on--wait for it--China, there are 17 separate investigations going forward into Trump's affairs (and as a lawyer--yes, I'm still leaning on my expertise!--I promise you are kidding yourself if you think Trump's just going to motor on through them all without repercussions; they are bad, ce, really, really bad), and god, so much more. It's hard even to keep up. I'm exhausted from trying.
It's starting to implode now and the grown-ups are gone. It will only get worse from here until he's out of office, one way or another. I just hope we come through it as a nation.
But mark this -- none of it will surprise me. All those things Trump supporters have been pooh-poohing and excusing and denying and avoiding pointed directly at the moment we're in and the much, much worse times to come.
This is gonna be bad. And it's going to be all the worse because so many enabled and excused him for so long, and alas, will continue to do so.
|
|
|
Post by prozyan on Dec 21, 2018 12:48:11 GMT -5
It is a monumentally stupid move.
Forget Iran and Russia, what's going to happen is Turkey is going to move in and slaughter our Kurdish allies. That is who Mattis is referring to in his resignation. When that happens, we will have lost all credibility with any potential allies in the Middle East for a generation at least. If not forever.
|
|
|
Post by markesq on Dec 21, 2018 12:53:53 GMT -5
And for me, Cass, I think your last point is the most damning for me. That Trump is a liar, we know. That's he's a crook, well, we didn't know for sure until now but we can't really say we're surprised. It's the enabling that's disappointed (and angered) me. And by that, I mean from the top (Ryan, McConnell etc) all the way down to those decent people who are prepared to look the other way and say, "Aww, he's just Trump, it's not that bad." The full extent of how bad it is will soon be evident, I think. Morally and criminally bad, and I don't think there will be any doubt left.
Which brings us to Syria, this thread. A truly fine example of Trump at his most ignorant, impetuous, and obdurate. I can only hope that the people who are/were so "America First" will see where such policies can lead when your approach is, in fact, "America Alone." We don't live in that world anymore. This country is or will soon be weaker, poorer, and less influential because of Trump and those who support (or enable) him.
Although, ironically, whoever comes in next will actually have the chance to make America great again.
|
|
|
Post by mikey on Dec 21, 2018 13:16:10 GMT -5
It won't be the first time the US has left their allies hang out to dry. The late great George Bush senior fucked over the Kurds back in 91. This whole "US allies" thing is not new, as a matter of fact, it's pretty much par for course. No tears from me. www.bbc.com/news/in-pictures-35967389
|
|