anglolawyer
Banned
Make more straw why don't you? I didn't say that. If you want to explain how your service gave you insights into the development and formulation of the policy that put you there, go right ahead.
Let's all invade Syria!
- Thread starter anglolawyer
- Start date
Make more straw why don't you? I didn't say that. If you want to explain how your service gave you insights into the development and formulation of the policy that put you there, go right ahead.
It didn't, which just about puts us on equal footing. So if, to use your own words, my "military service does not qualify
to assess the policy reasons lying behind the intervention nor the truth of the claims made on the NATO side", then you certainly can't either. But as I said, that didn't stop you from opining and claiming things all over the place.
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2009
- Messages
- 23,101
Not in the least, no. Western leaders have objected to the Assad dictatorship since forever.
But it's not clear to me whether the devil we know might actually turn out to have been the least appalling possible outcome.
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2009
- Messages
- 23,101
I don't think Syria is anywhere near as simple as Evil Dictator vs The People.
It's a country made up of several major religious/ethnic groups, and it might* be fairer to compare the Assad dictatorship trying to hold it all together with, say, Yugoslavia under Tito.
*Or it might not. I'm no expert, I'm just this guy on the internet alarmed by the simplistic goodies vs baddies portrayal I saw on the TV news (although that has been getting more nuanced lately).
newyorkguy
Penultimate Amazing
You've come pretty close to defining what it means to you.
The portion highlighted below seems flawed to me, it always does.
Why? Because people who state that always ignore the fact that, at least in the West, there are NO monolithic "governments" who formulate secret foreign policies and then lie to the public about what it is.
In Western societies these policies are subject to great debate within and without government. Careers are sometimes made or ended depending on how leaders negotiate the minefield of policy choices There are undoubtedly people in the US government right this minute who are convinced the US or the West should intervene in Syria. But they can't get that policy enacted. Why? Because they haven't formulated the lies necessary to trick the public into supporting. No.
There's too much opposition to it among people inside the government.
anglolawyer
Banned
All I said was your service does not itself qualify you on questions of the policy that put boots on the ground. I detect no disagreement (so far). I do not claim to know what policy considerations got us into Kosovo. I have expressed doubt that intervention was altruistically motivated.
newyorkguy
Penultimate Amazing
The Assad regime, in its desperation to remain in power, has become increasingly violent. They're killing many of their own citizens. Not for immediate tactical reasons, but apparently to terrorize the population into supporting the regime.
The position of many Americans (and others) is being misrepresented in that regard. People are asking, is there anyway to stop the slaughter of non-combatants, the slaughter of children, women, the elderly without intervening militarily?
anglolawyer
Banned
This is an interesting point. How do governments in open societies hope to get away with downright lies? There are clear precedents showing that they attempt to do so. Take:
1 the UK and France trying to retake control of the Suez canal in a secret pact with Israel in 1956 - the lie told in this case was truly blatant, that there was no pre-existing pact;
2 Iran-contra - you have to fill in the blanks for me as I am not au fait with the details but was this not a secret plan to generate funds for the contra-rebels in Nicaragua from irregular arms sales to Iran?
3 Cambodia - didn't the CIA conduct an entire secret war
there during the Vietnam conflict?4 Iraq 2003 - no words are necessary. Get back to me when you find the WMD.
These methods occur to me as things the government can generally rely on:
- brazen and shameless lying
- the gullibility, apathy and loyalty of the populace
- the very fact it is an open society in which it's always possible to find naysayers about everything
- the tacit agreement of the opposition party not to expose all but the most egregious and damaging frauds when arriving in office
- a generally docile and compliant mass media
- if not total, then near-total control over critical information needed to make an assessment of policy (diplomatic cables, intelligence, military dispositions etc)
newyorkguy
Penultimate Amazing
The two examples I'm familiar with illustrate my earlier point. Neither was a plan of the US Government. The first was hatched by elements within the Reagan Administration. Even people IN the Reagan Administration were unaware it was happening. When it came to light it caused quite an uproar in the US precisely because it WASN'T a sanctioned US Government policy. People involved went to prison for their role in this incident.
IMO (and in the opinion of others more knowledgeable than me) Iraq was really a response to 9/11. Many people in the US Government -- Barack Obama (then a US Senator) prominent among them -- seriously questioned whether the evidence of WMDs was reliable. The Bush Administration insisted the evidence was. I'll admit, at the time I believed the evidence. So did many people. Was Bush lying or mistaken? Did he see what he wanted to see? Confirmation bias, anyone?
Anecdotes don't prove much, anyway. Except government is far from perfect. If I can get away with a personal comment, anglolawyer seems more disillusioned than cynical.
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
Ramsey Clark is a joke.IN the US he is considered a major league nutjob.
anglolawyer
Banned
I'll take disillusioned and cynical if you like. Saddam and Al Qaeda were sworn enemies. The US knew perfectly well he had nothing to do with 9-11 and the fact you still join those two dots kinda makes my point about the sort of things lying governments can rely on when hoping to take us along with them. Funny thing is, properly explained, I might agree with the policy anyway (but not Iraq) but what I don't buy is the constant and cynical harping on about irrelevant humanitarian issues, like the use of gas in Syria.
Publicly announcing the use of gas would cross a red line gave a huge incentive to the rebels to stage a gas attack on themselves in the hope of getting the kind of support the Libyan rebels got. If that's what happened so far it didn't work but it shows all sides can play games with public opinion, not just government.
newyorkguy
Penultimate Amazing
My understanding was, 9/11 connected with Saddam in regards- Where's the next big threat coming from?
I'm paraphrasing Bush but he said roughly, "We've seen what can happen. Murrica has many enemies around the world. Even as we speak Saddam Hussein is producing WMDs. Do we wait for him to launch a terrorist attack on our shores? Or do we take preemptive action."
I live and work in the NY City area. I feared for my life on 9/11. Saddam seemed like enough of a threat -- taken together with all the other bad things he was doing -- that I supported Regime Change. I sure did.
I know a lot of people disagree with this position. We argued about it at work the very day after Shock and Awe was launched. Some people agreed. Some people thought it was crazy. Barack Obama was against it. So were a lot of the US military at first. As I recall Colin Powell argued for ratcheting up the sanctions.
That's the way it's supposed to work. Please, let's not go all over the place with this. Let's stick with Syria and now.
anglolawyer
Banned
Weeellll they are kinda related and your post does make my point rather well, but OK. Let's stick to Syria. What do you make of the specific point? Do you think the use of gas justifies intervention and do you think your government capable of lying about it?
newyorkguy
Penultimate Amazing
ftfy
Do I think the use of gas justifies intervention? No I do not and I think many people in the non-monolithic US Government think the same thing.
Would US officials lie about it? You mean to trigger an intervention? I doubt that for the reason I'm not sure any of them are in that much of a lather to intervene. They may differ in their assessments.
Link
Let me ask you a question. Do you consider the US the "Great Satan?"
That's a joke!
anglolawyer
Banned
ftfy
Do I think the use of gas justifies intervention? No I do not and I think many people in the non-monolithic US Government think the same thing.
Would US officials lie about it? You mean to trigger an intervention? I doubt that for the reason I'm not sure any of them are in that much of a lather to intervene. They may differ in their assessments.
Link
Let me ask you a question. Do you consider the US the "Great Satan?"
That's a joke!
Well, I will take it seriously anyway. In 1945 the US emerged from WW2 the leader of the western world. Its spirit of freedom, energy, openness and generosity shone like a beacon. It set conquered countries back on their feet, victors and vanquished alike. I would say the golden age of this great empire lasted about 15 years.
Now, that authority has been denuded, thanks to relative economic decline, towering debt, gross inequality, moral degeneration (controversial, I admit) and false steps in foreign policy. Has the US found a new role since winning the Cold war?
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
As romantic fantasies go, your fall-of-America narrative is second in epicness only to your rise-of-America narrative.
anglolawyer
Banned
I see where you're coming from and if I had my time again I might not put it the same way. Let's say the US was great for about the time that Peyton Place aired. Or maybe I Love Lucy. Or Bilco. One of them.
Virus
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2006
- Messages
- 6,875
newyorkguy
Penultimate Amazing
Btw, according to an article in this week's New Yorker magazine, Obama -- despite the recommendations of his national security advisers to the contrary -- is apparently adamant we will not get involved in Syria.
President Obama doesn't even want to supply weapons. Only non-combat support. (e.g food, first-aid, etc.) The Free Syria forces include some very extreme elements. Not all are jihadists, but the majority are. Obama fears once American-supplied weapons get into Syria the US loses control over them. Obama believes we would wind up inadvertently supplying weapons to Islamic fundamentalist extremists.
The article revealed another interesting political reality. Washington insiders believe there is very little political capital to be gained by an American President in interventions. An example they gave was Clinton in Bosnia. The mission was very successful yet Clinton got very little political credit from that. Yet when 18 American military personnel were killed when Somalian insurgents brought down the Blackhawk helicopter, Clinton took a major hit.
Many people in the Administration believe there is very little upside to intervening in Syria and all kinds of risks.
President Obama doesn't even want to supply weapons. Only non-combat support. (e.g food, first-aid, etc.) The Free Syria forces include some very extreme elements. Not all are jihadists, but the majority are. Obama fears once American-supplied weapons get into Syria the US loses control over them. Obama believes we would wind up inadvertently supplying weapons to Islamic fundamentalist extremists.
The article revealed another interesting political reality. Washington insiders believe there is very little political capital to be gained by an American President in interventions. An example they gave was Clinton in Bosnia. The mission was very successful yet Clinton got very little political credit from that. Yet when 18 American military personnel were killed when Somalian insurgents brought down the Blackhawk helicopter, Clinton took a major hit.
Many people in the Administration believe there is very little upside to intervening in Syria and all kinds of risks.
anglolawyer
Banned
So? All my best opinions come from retards. Got any more ad hominems?