Congressional Vote on Syria - Use of Chemical Weapons (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

cloudboy -> Congressional Vote on Syria - Use of Chemical Weapons (9/8/2013 8:26:50 PM)

There was a great piece in the SAT NYT written by Alan Grayson, a Democratic representative from Florida and a member of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.

He made one stunning point, which is that even as a Congressman on the Committee on Foreign Affairs, he does not have access to all the secret intelligence the US generates. He also notes that the executive likes to cherry pick / slant the intelligence to support its position.

The Syria chemical weapons summaries are based on several hundred underlying elements of intelligence information. The unclassified summary cites intercepted telephone calls, “social media” postings and the like, but not one of these is actually quoted or attached — not even clips from YouTube. (As to whether the classified summary is the same, I couldn’t possibly comment, but again, draw your own conclusion.)

Over the last week the administration has run a full-court press on Capitol Hill, lobbying members from both parties in both houses to vote in support of its plan to attack Syria. And yet we members are supposed to accept, without question, that the proponents of a strike on Syria have accurately depicted the underlying evidence, even though the proponents refuse to show any of it to us or to the American public.

A very good read.

---------

The SAT edition also had a very good explanation as to why the world has banned chemical weapons. The piece noted that even Hitler refrained from using them in combat during WWII. Also, The Geneva Protocol was not even the first effort to ban the use of poison in war, said Joanna Kidd of King’s College London. “Throughout history, there has been a general revulsion against the use of poisons against human beings in warfare, going back to the Greeks,” she said. Some date a first effort to ban such weaponry to 1675, when France and the Holy Roman Empire agreed in Strasbourg not to use poisoned bullets.



JeffBC -> RE: Congressional Vote on Syria - Use of Chemical Weapons (9/8/2013 8:46:56 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy
The SAT edition also had a very good explanation as to why the world has banned chemical weapons. The piece noted that even Hitler refrained from using them in combat during WWII. Also, The Geneva Protocol was not even the first effort to ban the use of poison in war, said Joanna Kidd of King’s College London. “Throughout history, there has been a general revulsion against the use of poisons against human beings in warfare, going back to the Greeks,” she said. Some date a first effort to ban such weaponry to 1675, when France and the Holy Roman Empire agreed in Strasbourg not to use poisoned bullets.

Heh... except it's not really seen as "too horrible", is it? We just say it is. That's why I dislike such rules. Hell, the US uses "poisons" on it's own citizens without remorse. You can bet your sweet ass we have quite a few advanced chemical and biological and nuclear development programs going on. Nothing is too horrible for war the moment you start to lose. Witness Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the massive arsenal of nuclear weapons the US possesses poised to strike anywhere on the globe again upon need.

War is too horrible for war.



cloudboy -> RE: Congressional Vote on Syria - Use of Chemical Weapons (9/8/2013 9:51:51 PM)

The piece in the NYT referred to Wilfred Owen's poem, Dulce et Decorum Est. What I got out of the piece overall is that soldiers just find it horrifying and that the experience itself is something one does not want to experience either as a victim or a perpetrator.

People far removed from war, battle, and combat experience ask the naive question, "O, what's the difference." The consensus from the battlefields and the soldiers and the innocent victims is that, "yes, there is a difference."

This made quite an impression on me, as did the description of the poison gas attack in Syria, unleashed on innocent civilians. It must have been completely horrifying.

------

In response to your post, it's hard for me to see what you are adding to the understanding of: (1) the complicated vote on the use of force against Syria and; (2) why biological weapons have been banned by all civilized countries of the earth. A platitude about war doesn't really shed much insight or light into these topics, even though I agree with what you are saying. But your post is too dismissive of what needs to be analyzed and understood --- and both articles referenced were very good reads to gain further understanding of the situation.



popeye1250 -> RE: Congressional Vote on Syria - Use of Chemical Weapons (9/9/2013 1:04:46 AM)

I think this sums it up nicely.

http://chicksontheright.com/posts/item/24693-oh-snap



DesideriScuri -> RE: Congressional Vote on Syria - Use of Chemical Weapons (9/9/2013 4:50:27 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250
I think this sums it up nicely.
http://chicksontheright.com/posts/item/24693-oh-snap


Theater.



mnottertail -> RE: Congressional Vote on Syria - Use of Chemical Weapons (9/9/2013 6:04:50 AM)

LOLOLOL. What the fuck is wrong with her face? I know she doesn't possess much beyond a brainstem, but that shouldnt have any affect on that.



DesideriScuri -> RE: Congressional Vote on Syria - Use of Chemical Weapons (9/9/2013 7:11:13 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
LOLOLOL. What the fuck is wrong with her face? I know she doesn't possess much beyond a brainstem, but that shouldnt have any affect on that.


I think someone switched her makeup kit with adobe. Personally, I really loved the aggressive opening monologue, the 180 sweet "welcome to the show," and another 180 back to the attack.

Like I said, theater (or theatre, depending on your bent).



JeffBC -> RE: Congressional Vote on Syria - Use of Chemical Weapons (9/9/2013 7:33:36 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy
People far removed from war, battle, and combat experience ask the naive question, "O, what's the difference." The consensus from the battlefields and the soldiers and the innocent victims is that, "yes, there is a difference."

I am not arguing that there isn't a difference. There self-evidently is. What I'm arguing is that the people playing "the great game" don't give a rats ass about that difference when their own power becomes jeopardized. The priority tree these people work under starts with "my power" or, more accurately, "my family power" and it pretty much ends there too. So all these pretty words are meaningless.

quote:

In response to your post, it's hard for me to see what you are adding to the understanding of: (1) the complicated vote on the use of force against Syria and;

I am trying to address the points you have brought up. There is no "complicated vote" on Syria. There is, however, a determined effort on the part of our rulers to go to war despite our wishes. That's the only complication here. I am dismissing "the horrible act of Syria" because it isn't horrible... at least not in Obama's eyes. That's all theatrics and handwaving. We all know that. How could we not? Darfur anyone? Our leaders don't give a rats ass about horror as I noted above. They care about power. I'm trying to address what's really going on not the theatrical production being played out to hypnotise us.

quote:

(2) why biological weapons have been banned by all civilized countries of the earth.

Why they have been "banned" is also obvious. It makes the soldiers happy and the citizens get to think how good we are... as we gas our own citizens
and construct our own such weapons.



chatterbox24 -> RE: Congressional Vote on Syria - Use of Chemical Weapons (9/9/2013 8:04:25 AM)

I voted for President Obama and I was very proud of him. But this Syria thing, and the congress thing, and the not listening to us thing, is very disappointing to me to say the least.

American people are fed up, and we might end up going all hill billy on their butts. I do thinks tis power going to their heads, lass and lassies.

Democracy? psst.




Yachtie -> RE: Congressional Vote on Syria - Use of Chemical Weapons (9/9/2013 9:52:07 AM)

FR -

And just like that, with the new "appeasement" initiative proposed earlier today by Putin and which Syria has just fully complied with, the US strategy of "containing" Syrian chemical weapons has been difused. From Reuters:


Syria welcomes a Russian proposal to place the nation's chemical weapons under international control, Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Moualem said on Monday after talks in Moscow, praising the Kremlin for seeking to "prevent American aggression".

Moualem, who spoke to reporters through an interpreter after Russia expressed hope the proposal could avert military strikes against Syria, stopped short of saying explicitly that President Bashar al-Assad's government accepted it.

"I state that the Syrian Arab Republic welcomes the Russian initiative, motivated by the Syrian leadership's concern for the lives of our citizens and the security of our country, and also motivated by our confidence in the wisdom of the Russian leadership, which is attempting to prevent American aggression against our people," he said


Putin serves, and what will Obama do with the volley?



mnottertail -> RE: Congressional Vote on Syria - Use of Chemical Weapons (9/9/2013 10:07:27 AM)

Who is international control? The UN?

Or Moscow?

When? What level of assurances?




Yachtie -> RE: Congressional Vote on Syria - Use of Chemical Weapons (9/9/2013 10:42:25 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

Who is international control? The UN?

Or Moscow?

When? What level of assurances?





Who knows as of yet. The ball is still in play.



mnottertail -> RE: Congressional Vote on Syria - Use of Chemical Weapons (9/9/2013 11:09:35 AM)

Yeah, a bunt isn't quite a serve, so the volley will be equally vague and of immediate consequence. We might suggest Snowden, he seems to tell everybody what he knows, and he is already in Russia.



Yachtie -> RE: Congressional Vote on Syria - Use of Chemical Weapons (9/9/2013 11:19:39 AM)

Seen via ZH -


Rice: "Our overarching goal is to end the underlying conflict through a negotiated, political transition in which Assad leaves power" #Syria

— White House Live (@WHLive) September 9, 2013


So, is it about regime change or chemical weapons? Is it about Quatar, the pipeline, and Iran or is about Assad's use of chem-weap? Obama seems to be painting himself into a corner. Just days ago it was not about regime change.




mnottertail -> RE: Congressional Vote on Syria - Use of Chemical Weapons (9/9/2013 11:33:35 AM)

Yeah, ZeroHedge...............FLUSH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

he is painting himself in a corner........isn't he always, because there is an end goal to be accomplished.

Not like the house who is drowning in the middle of the ocean with fiscal responsibility, massive defense appropriations (that we obviously are not needing) a debt ceiling and bankruptcy being kicked down the road again...........



Hillwilliam -> RE: Congressional Vote on Syria - Use of Chemical Weapons (9/9/2013 11:38:25 AM)

The only problem is that it isn't an ordinary person painting themselves into a corner. It's someone with a million+ man army and nukes and assorted other nasties



mnottertail -> RE: Congressional Vote on Syria - Use of Chemical Weapons (9/9/2013 11:42:56 AM)

And there are others (quite probably far better informed) that say thus:

http://www.thepeoplesview.net/2013/09/is-obama-in-process-of-landing.html



Hillwilliam -> RE: Congressional Vote on Syria - Use of Chemical Weapons (9/9/2013 11:50:08 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

And there are others (quite probably far better informed) that say thus:

http://www.thepeoplesview.net/2013/09/is-obama-in-process-of-landing.html

I hope it's true but I hope you'll forgive me if I don't hold my breath.



mnottertail -> RE: Congressional Vote on Syria - Use of Chemical Weapons (9/9/2013 11:51:48 AM)

its like painting in another ad hoc corner............to paint yourself into, until you paint the circle so there are no corners.




chatterbox24 -> RE: Congressional Vote on Syria - Use of Chemical Weapons (9/9/2013 11:52:59 AM)

We cant change what happened, its such a terrible thing, horrible. How good it would be if the leaders just unarm and talk and come to an agreement. Someone has to be the bigger, and war isn't being bigger.
I don't think Obama is bluffing, if things don't go a certain way, there will be war.

I pray for a the most peaceful solution possible. I am not even going to pretend to understand the devastation and the complications of such grief, living in my temporary safe bubble.



Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875