Moment of Truth In The Middle East.

Leadership has its costs. If the US wants to have any standing to act as a moral voice on the international stage, this is the kind of situation that cannot be tolerated. Otherwise, just pal up with the thugs as the Russians do.

 

They used NCBs. An internationally agreed upon no no. The US is a leader. A leader for international equality within reason, and a leader for and in the protection of the innocent in such a way as possible. Part of being a leader means taking a stand, even if not popular, because you can and therefore should.

So either the US LEADS, and moves forward with imposing ramifications for violating intentionally agreed upon terms of use for NBCs, or get the hell rid of them and stop interjecting world wide in any foreign policy that does not directly involve our sovereignty. Because if we pick and choose, that doesn't make us leaders. That makes us fickle little gossipy [itch bay]es.

 

The Assads' entire reign has been an affront to all of humanity. Nothing quaint about it at all. Hell, even the Arab League condemned those clowns today. The only reason we haven't already taken action is the attempt to get the sanction of Vladimir Putin. Last time I checked, he's not the POTUS. He can get on board or pound sand. His choice.

 

Ask the families who buried their dead from the barracks bombing in Beirut how invalid the analogy is. I'll ride with them on this one.

 

Or opportunistic cowards. I'd prefer to leave that role to the French.

 

I will just say that even with your valid points, in my mind inadequate as it may be, I just can't see turning a blind eye to the use of one of the most vile weapons ever devised by man on innocent children with such disregard not only for life but also in the face of international law. Either we value those laws or we don't. That may or may not be enough in other's eyes, but I'm ok with that. IMHO, this is a heinously uncivilized act that not just the US, but the entire world can't ignore.

I recall a discussion about respecting the law in the amnesty debate. Many views were presented in defense of the law. To me, this is a gross violation of basic human laws.

 

The Assads have been the biggest sponsors of terrorism on the planet for half a century. They've gotten a pass because the Russians chose them as a strategic ally in the region. That pass should be revoked forthwith.

 

I'm not convinced we wouldn't be trading like for like. We've demonstrated a good deal of naivety with how to handle affairs in that region over the years. What makes this situation any different?

I do agree that our involvement should not be half-assed if we choose to wade in, but I doubt we will have the good sense to recognize that the enemy of our enemy is most likely our enemy here.

 

I see his point. This isn't a defense of Assad or inaction, but it's not the same as Mussolini or Hitler (if for nothing else, because they declared war on the United States).

 

I'd say providing aid, comfort, and financial support for those who attack our military bases is about as clear a declaration of war as there is. We had no problem taking down Qaddafi and Hussein for far, far less than the Assads have perpetrated. Hey, if we want to be Russia's puppet, we should just announce such and move forward.

 

Please explain how the overwhelming majority of the world neither recognizes nor certainly wants to acknowledge the US' "leadership" in their affairs, their region, or the world. And that's not even to mention the "moral voice" nonsense.

We can't even determine a common morality amongst ourselves, on issues of great and trivial importance - how you could assume we could do the same on a global scale is laughably naive. Dumb, even.

It sounds like you're advocating less for "leadership" than empirialism.

 

Truth. That's my biggest hesitation here. If we get rid of the Assads because they sponsor terrorism and use chemical weapons just to put terrorists groups in charge, what have we accomplished and who have we protected?

 

If it were a Republican president strongly considering mobilizing, for some reason the reaction from many would be totally different. We invaded Iraq for trying to hurt daddy Bush a decade previous, and that was fine at the time. Hell, Clinton got shit for merely taking out pharmaceutical facilities tied to Al Qaeda, and the same ones who were critical of that move were the ones chomping at the bit to invade Iraq while already involved in Afghanistan.

In short, I am quite cynical of anti-war comments from the Right.

 

They never want the US voice or its leadership, until they are under the thumb of facsim and have no other option. Funny how that works.

If the Assads are not wiped out immediately, we should all start wearing berets and having tea and scones at noon because we've joined the French and British in the pantheon of impotent, meaningless world players.

 

Aren't we the only nation to ever use a nuclear bomb - which is, the ultimate taboo, no?

A "leader for international equality", huh? By what standard or rule of law, exactly? The Constitution? UN Resolution? Papal Edict?
What, exactly, says so?

I would hope that we could admire the kind of leadership that stands up - insofar as its met with the common sense of also knowing when to sit down, shut up, and stay out if needlessly meddlng in the affairs of others....particularly when doing so is equally unpopular with its own citizenry, and even as to they raise their pitchforks and light their torches.

 

Haliburton stock payouts have fattened the chicken hawks on the right enough that they don't need their hands back in the till just yet. It won't be long.

 

Actually, what was the state of international law and pacts regarding nuclear weapons when we used them?
Once, you educate yourself on that, compare that to the state of play regarding chemical weapons now.

 

So, we should intervene on any nation who acts in violation of international law? Even if true (I would argue its not), why the US, exactly?

And only when it comes to NBC weapons?

What about the hundreds of thousands who are slaughtered in Africa by any number of warring factions? Do they not also count, and equally? And if so, when should we also begin to bomb them?

Do we devalue international law in failing to bomb them?

It may very well violate any number of laws - but please show me where those laws are ours to enforce.

 

Yeah, it's crazy to think there is some consensus about the use of chemical weapons. Hell, the way I'm acting you'd think there is long established international law and edict prohibiting it, which pretty much every country at the world has signed off on. Silly me.

 

How exactly is a civil war a violation of international law, in and of itself?

It's like regular law enforcement. You enforce the most important laws as your resources allow. Not a complex concept.