|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Earwig O'Agen - Syria
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
Is a 'missal strike' the Anglo-Catholic equivalent of being a bible-basher?
Changing the subject, something I'm surprised the media hasn't mentioned is this. I wonder if it's an indicator that the average pundit doesn't know much history.
If one goes back to the Inter-War, post Ottoman years, Syria was always an area of French influence, and Iraq of ours.
[ 06. September 2013, 13:18: Message edited by: Enoch ]
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Is a 'missal strike' the Anglo-Catholic equivalent of being a bible-basher?
Changing the subject, something I'm surprised the media hasn't mentioned is this. I wonder if it's an indicator that the average pundit doesn't know much history.
If one goes back to the Inter-War, post Ottoman years, Syria was always an area of French influence, and Iraq of ours.
I've seen it mentioned by a few journalists. I would bet that quite a few people in the Middle East discuss this! Just as they discuss the overthrow of the democratic govt in Iran in 1953, helped by Western intelligence.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
If Assad and jihadists are wanting to go at it why not just stand back and give them room?
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I think the West want to hurt Iran, but they are loath to do it directly, so attacking Syria is a kind of proxy wounding. Well, possibly.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Because 'our' Gulf Arab proxies aren't.
We've been meddling in the Middle East for over 2000 years, why stop now?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
2000? Don't you mean 200? 2000 years ago they were meddling in our affairs.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
If Assad and jihadists are wanting to go at it why not just stand back and give them room?
Wasn't Syria Russia's cold-war bedfellow ? If they're not prepared to put in the hours I can't see the point in the rest of us worrying our heads over it.
I suspect it won't be long before the sufferings of this unfortunate land are once again out of the news, and therefore out of our minds.
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Oi, Dante lover, chew mean? Christianity subverting the evil empire? I mean, yer bleedin' West (in 'modern' geo-political terms, not trivial Schismatic), yer Europa; Greco-Roman, yer Beast stuck it's snout in the middle-East with (yer winged tetracephalous leopard) Alexander and it's barely been out since.
A little matter of the Crusades? Apart from the Vth. Or are you referring to the Middle-Eastern reaction to apostatic Christianity known as Islam?
Hmmm?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Mere Nick: If Assad and jihadists are wanting to go at it why not just stand back and give them room?
Where two elephants are fighting, the grass will suffer (African proverb).
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
malik3000
Shipmate
# 11437
|
Posted
Syria: Six Alternatives to Military Strikes
quote:
Many of the legal and diplomatic processes that led to peace in other times of conflict haven't even been tried yet in Syria.
[ 07. September 2013, 03:06: Message edited by: malik3000 ]
--------------------
God = love.
Otherwise, things are not just black or white.
Posts: 3149 | From: North America | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
The people are leaving, in their millions. Soon there will only be those who love to fight left.
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
... let those who wish to fight use the weapons of their choice and pray for a speedy conclusion .
The Western effort might as well go to helping those millions the best we can . The grass may suffer, but come time of peace it will recover.
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Pteryotetracephalous?
And how was the ME meddling with us 2000 years ago? Most of my ancestors were within the empire or just beyond. So yeah, I'd been interfered with and brainwashed for over 2000 years up until last year really.
How do we peacefully subvert war? THIS war?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alt Wally
Cardinal Ximinez
# 3245
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
So, how do we know it was Assad who used the chemical weapons?
Personally, I don't think it matters all that much. I actually assume he did. I don't doubt the opposition (or at least some of them) are equally capable of such horrendous acts and would probably use the same weapons if they had them. So in the end you have to ask how can we stop the bloodshed, institute order, prevent genocidal violence against minorities, stabilize a volatile Mid East, and stem a refugee crisis, etc.? I don't see how it could be done without massive on the ground intervention. However, we've tried that, and it failed. Iraq parallels Syria in so many ways. Genocidal violence, chemical weapons, international red lines, missile strikes, regime change, and so on. We went all in with Iraq and lost our bet. It's "Deja vu all over again". Things are much worse than they were before. Who is confident intervening in Syria will improve things?
When you boil down the arguments, such as being made by Kyl and Lieberman in the WSJ, I don't think it's really about chemical weapons anyway. It's about our credibility as a superpower and our stake in the Saudi-Iran proxy war being fought in Syria. The thinking is we say red line, and don't bomb, then nobody takes us seriously and there's a green light for any dictator to do whatever they want to do. I personally do not buy in to that line of thinking at all. Interventionism isn't new though, and it isn't a Democratic or Republican specific tendency. It is a shared line of thought, I think historically portrayed well in Stephen Kinzer's book Overthrow. I'm sure many who have basked in the aura of Obama are feeling a sense (albeit largely publicly unexpressed) of horror to realize their proponent of change is really just about business as usual when it comes to foreign policy; and one ready to go unilateral when he thinks necessary.
There is an online petition to protest the pending attack. Link
Posts: 3684 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alt Wally:
.... When you boil down the arguments, such as being made by Kyl and Lieberman in the WSJ, ....
Sorry, but what does WSJ stand for and are these two names people we should have heard of?
Changing the subject, I've said this already, but what rationale - if any - is there for those who claim that by voting not to intervene, the UK is abdicating its claim to be a power of adequate world calibre .
A. Is that a reason for dropping bombs on people? It sounds like saying you have to drop bombs on Damascus not because you hope it will bring peace to Syria but because otherwise the rest of the world will think your willy has shrunk.
B. Why then is no one saying the Russians and Chinese are forgoing their status as powers that should be taken seriously in the world? They aren't resolving to intervene. Have their willies shrunk?
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
quote:
Sorry, but what does WSJ stand for and are these two names people we should have heard of?
WSJ: Wall Street Journal.
Lieberman: I'm assuming Joe, Gore's running mate and all-around foreign-policy hawk.
Not sure who Kyl is. Wikipedia awaits.
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
And since this is the Ship, where people take an interest in religion, I will observe that there seems to be a bit of a divergence between the Israel Lobby and their usual pre-millenialist Christian allies over Syria.
AIPAC had come out guns a-blazin' for a strike against Syria. But Hal Lindsey seems to be hedging his bets, and has even posted a video questioning whether the Syrian government was behind the chemical attack.
I'm speculating that the pre-mils have maybe drawn the conclusion that crippling or overthrowing secularist regimes in the mideast might not produce the best outcomes for the indiginous Christian populations.
Or maybe they just hate Obama, though Lindesy himself can be seen praying for Obama to make the right decision on Syria.
--------------------
I have the power...Lucifer is lord!
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
And since this is the Ship, where people take an interest in religion, I will observe that there seems to be a bit of a divergence between the Israel Lobby and their usual pre-millenialist Christian allies over Syria.
AIPAC had come out guns a-blazin' for a strike against Syria. But Hal Lindsey seems to be hedging his bets, and has even posted a video questioning whether the Syrian government was behind the chemical attack.
I'm speculating that the pre-mils have maybe drawn the conclusion that crippling or overthrowing secularist regimes in the mideast might not produce the best outcomes for the indiginous Christian populations.
Or maybe they just hate Obama, though Lindesy himself can be seen praying for Obama to make the right decision on Syria.
Sorry, Stetson, you've done it too. You mustn't assume that we foreigners know who AIPAC is or what it stands for.
And guessing that pre-mil means pre-millenarian, to nothing like the same extent do we go in over here for speculation about the precise sequence of the run-in to the parousia. Why would only a pre-millenarian be concerned for his or her Christian brothers and sisters in the Levant? Wouldn't all Christians be?
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
Sorry.
AIPAC
quote:
Why would only a pre-millenarian be concerned for his or her Christian brothers and sisters in the Levant? Wouldn't all Christians be?
Indeed they would. But with the pre-millenarians, I was trying to account for the fact that they're now taking a position that seems to go against that of their tacit allies in the Israeli right-wing. What I'm thinking is that maybe the Iraq debacle made them realize just how bad things could get for Christians when a secularist strongman gets tossed out.
For the record, I am a "foreigner" too, or at least a non-American.
--------------------
I have the power...Lucifer is lord!
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alt Wally
Cardinal Ximinez
# 3245
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
what rationale - if any - is there for those who claim that by voting not to intervene, the UK is abdicating its claim to be a power of adequate world calibre .
I would imagine the holders of that viewpoint would believe that if Britain stands aside, while the likes of France and Denmark participate in direct military action; it has effectively become a sort of Germany on the world stage (albeit without the strong economy, so it would lack influence there as well).
Posts: 3684 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alt Wally:
When you boil down the arguments, such as being made by Kyl and Lieberman in the WSJ, I don't think it's really about chemical weapons anyway. It's about our credibility as a superpower and our stake in the Saudi-Iran proxy war being fought in Syria. The thinking is we say red line, and don't bomb, then nobody takes us seriously and there's a green light for any dictator to do whatever they want to do. I personally do not buy in to that line of thinking at all. Interventionism isn't new though, and it isn't a Democratic or Republican specific tendency. It is a shared line of thought, I think historically portrayed well in Stephen Kinzer's book Overthrow. I'm sure many who have basked in the aura of Obama are feeling a sense (albeit largely publicly unexpressed) of horror to realize their proponent of change is really just about business as usual when it comes to foreign policy; and one ready to go unilateral when he thinks necessary.
The words "basked in the aura of Obama" are more than a bit snotty, but as someone who voted for Obama twice, I'm pretty ticked off that his foreign policy and his approach to national security are not significantly enough different from what we have seen in the past. I don't know what kinds of circles you travel in, but I know plenty of others like myself who are entirely public about their feeling.
On a somewhat different note, I challenge the notion that the world is expecting us to do something. On Friday, I heard this on the radio, described the by the Washington Post:
quote:
At the end of a Group of 20 summit in Russia, President Obama recounted a recent conversation he had had with another head of state, as the question of whether the United States would soon attack Syria loomed over the gathering.
“I’m a small country, and nobody expects me to do anything about chemical weapons around the world,” Obama quoted his fellow leader as saying. “They know I have no capacity to do something, and it’s tough because people do look to the United States.”
Then, shifting to his own voice, Obama said: “And the question for the American people is, ‘Is that a responsibility that we’re willing to bear?’”
I think all those heads of other nations who are supposedly looking to the US to do something should clearly, publicly go on the record and say so. If Obama is truly having conversations like this with other leaders, he should tell them to get out there and call big press conferences and forcefully state that they expect the US to act. Without such public shows of support, I think we should simply stay out of it. We've made enough enemies by interferring in other countries' conflicts, and there is not very much to be gained by going into yet another no-win situation.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Superb RuthW. I can't believe I've got here. Will it stick? Will I refuse to take up arms against a sea of troubles when it comes my way? When it comes to my door? My loved ones?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
There was a discussion on R4 today about 'why should we be so much more shocked and disapproving of the use of chemical weapons than ordinary ones?'. One of the really 'exciting' statistics being thrown around was that despite poems by Wilfred Owen et al writing in the 1st World War, which have coloured our feelings about the use of gas, far, far more soldiers were killed in that war by shells.
Yebbut. Nobody seemed to mention that the victims in the recent attacks weren't combatants. They were casual bystanders who had the misfortune to be living in the wrong place. Is it now OK 97 years or so after the Germans started unwarned torpedoing of merchant shipping, to kill civilians? Do the rules of war now accept they are a legitimate target? Can you now target them with impunity, so long as you don't use the wrong sort of weapons to do so?
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Of course not. So would Jesus launch?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Which was a dumb response. Sorry Enoch. So dumb ...
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Do the rules of war now accept they are a legitimate target? Can you now target them with impunity, so long as you don't use the wrong sort of weapons to do so?
Well, if signature drone strikes are the norm, it's fine to shoot civilians as part of a non-war also.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Nobody seemed to mention that the victims in the recent attacks weren't combatants. They were casual bystanders who had the misfortune to be living in the wrong place. Is it now OK 97 years or so after the Germans started unwarned torpedoing of merchant shipping, to kill civilians? Do the rules of war now accept they are a legitimate target? Can you now target them with impunity, so long as you don't use the wrong sort of weapons to do so?
Yeah, I think that's pretty much how it works. As of mid-June 100,000 had already died, over 6,000 of them children, says the UN (see Wikipedia). The whole thing has been going on for two years. But now the Obama administration has suddenly decided we need to get excited about it and do something.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
I dunno. What's the big deal about killing people with chemicals anyway? They're dead. They could have been blown up. They could have been gassed. They're dead.
Further, if we're worried about chemical weapons, where does depleted uranium figure in? How about Agent Orange In Vietnam? Or white phosphorus in Fallujah?
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tukai
Shipmate
# 12960
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Yebbut. Nobody seemed to mention that the victims in the recent attacks weren't combatants. They were casual bystanders who had the misfortune to be living in the wrong place. Is it now OK 97 years or so after the Germans started unwarned torpedoing of merchant shipping, to kill civilians? Do the rules of war now accept they are a legitimate target? Can you now target them with impunity, so long as you don't use the wrong sort of weapons to do so?
And so Kerry's reaction is "let's bomb somewhere in Syria as punishment for their govt". So the USA killing innocent non-combatants who happen to be in the wrong place "sends a message to those who kill innocent women and children" How so?
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
The newly elected Prime Minister of Australia summed up the situation in Syria well but simplistically during the recent election campaign in Australia: "it looks to me like baddies versus baddies". Implication: it's not obvious what we [the rest of the world] should do except stay out of it.
--------------------
A government that panders to the worst instincts of its people degrades the whole country for years to come.
Posts: 594 | From: Oz | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Tukai:
And so Kerry's reaction is "let's bomb somewhere in Syria as punishment for their govt". So the USA killing innocent non-combatants who happen to be in the wrong place "sends a message to those who kill innocent women and children" How so?
Exactly my question.
Why more politicians are not asking it defeats me.
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Tukai:
And so Kerry's reaction is "let's bomb somewhere in Syria as punishment for their govt". So the USA killing innocent non-combatants who happen to be in the wrong place "sends a message to those who kill innocent women and children" How so?
The newly elected Prime Minister of Australia summed up the situation in Syria well but simplistically during the recent election campaign in Australia: "it looks to me like baddies versus baddies". Implication: it's not obvious what we [the rest of the world] should do except stay out of it.
Tukai, I agree with both those comments.
Boogie, I think what I said earlier about willies is the answer to your question.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hawk
Semi-social raptor
# 14289
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
I dunno. What's the big deal about killing people with chemicals anyway? They're dead. They could have been blown up. They could have been gassed. They're dead.
Further, if we're worried about chemical weapons, where does depleted uranium figure in? How about Agent Orange In Vietnam? Or white phosphorus in Fallujah?
I think the measure they use is the level of indiscriminate-ness of the weapon. The fact that gas is blown anywhere and cannot be precisely targeted makes people feel bad. The more indiscriminate and uncontrolled a weapon is, the more people get upset at its use. So gas is bad, as is radiation weapons, along with germ warfare as the three big no-nos. At least with white phosphrus, napalm, and depleted uranium, while they are chemically-based, horrible, and less precise than conventional bullets and bombs, they're still just about controllable enough that most people can overlook their use.
--------------------
“We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know." Dietrich Bonhoeffer
See my blog for 'interesting' thoughts
Posts: 1739 | From: Oxford, UK | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
The fact that gas is blown anywhere and cannot be precisely targeted makes people feel bad. The more indiscriminate and uncontrolled a weapon is, the more people get upset at its use.
In 1915 the British Army used gas at Loos . The wind turned and blew the gas back into British trenches killing their own men.
______________________________________
Coming back to Syria I don't get this 'sending a message' thing at all . Either Syria is left to sort it's own problems out or the International Community intervenes in a way that actually makes a real difference.
The only message tinkering will send is -- carry on with your killing, rape, torture and summary executions so long as you don't use gas.
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
I read this article and still wonder who to trust.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
It's irrelevant. Trust that is. Meaningless. 'Over there'. I trust our representatives to do that. Represent us for once. And not use their 'judgement'.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
malik3000
Shipmate
# 11437
|
Posted
The Left and Right Entirely Missed the Point of Obama Deferring to Congress on Syria
quote:
President Obama has used the Syria gas attack to accomplish something stunning: He's deliberately turned back the clock on presidential military intervention prerogatives to the World War Two paradigm. Whatever happens in Congress now the president has made it much harder for future presidents to pull a George W. Bush stunt and take America into dumb wars.
This is a interesting different perspective I haven't read before. If the writer is right, this would raise considerably my lately-sinking view of the Obama administration. But what would the writer have said if Syria hadn't responded and Russia hadn't made its move? What do shipmates think?
(tangent)(Although the article doesn't address what, to my mind, is still his most serious administrative flaw, his love affair with Wall St., as indicated by his chummy relations with folks like Lawrence Summers. Wall Street is the friend of no one else except Wall St.)(/tangent)
[ 13. September 2013, 07:24: Message edited by: malik3000 ]
--------------------
God = love.
Otherwise, things are not just black or white.
Posts: 3149 | From: North America | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by malik3000:
(tangent)(Although the article doesn't address what, to my mind, is still his most serious administrative flaw, his love affair with Wall St., as indicated by his chummy relations with folks like Lawrence Summers. Wall Street is the friend of no one else except Wall St.)(/tangent)
Tangent or no - and it is one - I prefer that description to
quote:
big business' kept whore
Reverting to the main topic, it's a bit troubling that as soon as Russia starts to have an active foreign policy of its own, western politicians revert to type and start using language redolent of the days of 'evil empire'. Wouldn't it be more rational to be more realistic. Russia are a powerful and important nation state with its own interests, which it is bound to want to protect and pursue, just as we do ours. Unlike 1920-60, it doesn't at the moment appear to have much of an interest in world domination. In stead of feeling threatened as soon as they are persuaded to do something that appears to be moving in the same direction as our leaders want to go, why not regard this as a bonus.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gwai
Shipmate
# 11076
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by malik3000:
The Left and Right Entirely Missed the Point of Obama Deferring to Congress on Syria
quote:
President Obama has used the Syria gas attack to accomplish something stunning: He's deliberately turned back the clock on presidential military intervention prerogatives to the World War Two paradigm. Whatever happens in Congress now the president has made it much harder for future presidents to pull a George W. Bush stunt and take America into dumb wars.
This is a interesting different perspective I haven't read before. If the writer is right, this would raise considerably my lately-sinking view of the Obama administration. But what would the writer have said if Syria hadn't responded and Russia hadn't made its move? What do shipmates think?
Then, in my opinion, Congress would have probably not given permission for the strike, and Obama would have had his ass covered. He can do nothing except rant. Then, if Syria gets worse, as it probably would have, he can use it to attack Republicans
[ 13. September 2013, 13:31: Message edited by: Gwai ]
--------------------
A master of men was the Goodly Fere,
A mate of the wind and sea.
If they think they ha’ slain our Goodly Fere
They are fools eternally.
Posts: 11914 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
In the same way, Parliament has let David Cameron off the hook. Both he and President Obama can say, 'I tried, but they wouldn't let me'. It avoids all the 'not in my name' demos that taint Tony Blair's reputation.
I like that idea, even though I suspect it isn't true.
I also like the idea that 'not in my name' may not have succeeded but in the longer term, perhaps may develop the notion that where the nation is not under direct threat, the executive should in future have to carry the country in some way before leaping into foreign military adventures
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
So it would have been all right if it was? Like just about every scrap we've been in for 100 ... 200 ... 1000 ... 2000 years ?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yam-pk
Shipmate
# 12791
|
Posted
If it wasn't a hung parliament, the Commons would've voted FOR military action, as they did for war in Iraq ![[Waterworks]](graemlins/bawling.gif)
Posts: 472 | From: The Grim North | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Garasu
Shipmate
# 17152
|
Posted
But it isn't a hung parliament?
--------------------
"Could I believe in the doctrine without believing in the deity?". - Modesitt, L. E., Jr., 1943- Imager.
Posts: 889 | From: Surrey Heath (England) | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
It is a hung parliament inasmuch as no party commands a majority of seats. The coalition of Conservatives and Liberal Democrats commands a parliamentary majority. The vote failed because Mr Miliband took the (correct and courageous, IMO) decision not to endorse the governments march to war and because a significant proportion of backbenchers, both Conservative and Lib Dem (although it is worth noting that it doesn't appear that any Lib. Dems. not on the government payroll voted for the government's motion) voted against.
If Assad had used chemical weapons when Parliament was in session, Cameron might have scraped it. A number of Tories were unable to get back in time for the vote (although two of them were discussing Rwanda, allegedly, and managed to miss the division bell). Bad news for the Something Must Be Done! This Is Something! This Must Be Done! brigade but good news for the Damascus headquarters of Disprin.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
quote:
Originally posted by malik3000:
The Left and Right Entirely Missed the Point of Obama Deferring to Congress on Syria
quote:
President Obama has used the Syria gas attack to accomplish something stunning: He's deliberately turned back the clock on presidential military intervention prerogatives to the World War Two paradigm. Whatever happens in Congress now the president has made it much harder for future presidents to pull a George W. Bush stunt and take America into dumb wars.
This is a interesting different perspective I haven't read before. If the writer is right, this would raise considerably my lately-sinking view of the Obama administration. But what would the writer have said if Syria hadn't responded and Russia hadn't made its move? What do shipmates think?
Then, in my opinion, Congress would have probably not given permission for the strike, and Obama would have had his ass covered. He can do nothing except rant. Then, if Syria gets worse, as it probably would have, he can use it to attack Republicans
Exactly. And I doubt Obama's defering to Congress this one time, when the American people are very clearly opposed to interfering in Syria anyway, will have much long-term effect. The quasi-monarchical president, at least when it comes to foreign policy, has too much precedent.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
I fear you are all right RuthW, Gwai, malik3000.
What astounds me is that the US has just ceased to threaten violence in humble conversation with the appalling but ... exemplary ... Christian ... Russians.
As long as 'our' Caesar keeps doing the right thing despite wanting to do the only thing he knows, Obama is edging toward the greatness of Kennedy.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alt Wally
Cardinal Ximinez
# 3245
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
The words "basked in the aura of Obama" are more than a bit snotty
I did not mean that comment personally. It is what I see as the collective fixation on the personality of the President, and the "hope" pinned to it, over the substance of the administration and what it has actually achieved. This is particularly hard to understand when you can see the level of continuity with the previous administration.
The topic of Kennedy is interesting given that we now know his administration provoked the Cuban missile crisis with both the Bay of Pigs and putting Jupiter missiles on the border of the Soviet Union. All of which brought us to the edge of catastrophe. He also embroiled us deeper in Indochina which among other things was probably the death of the Great Society. The mythology lives on though.
Posts: 3684 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
Pax, Alt Wally. And again, I could not agree more.
Martin, I don't see what makes you call Obama's negotiations with Putin over Syria "humble."
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view
