Only kidding. There’s no rush.
(As soon as I find the source I’ll add it.)
Just say NO to war. Say NO to humanitarian bombing. say NO to intervention etc etc.
It is Iraq 2.0 plain and simple. Obama will not get his credibility back,
regardless of whether he attacks. He lost it for good trying to
sell us this pack of lies.
I voted for him in 2008, I still believe that was a positive thing to do. But now it is clear Obama is no better than Bush. Sorry Mr. President, we’re through with you.
Forget the US for a moment. Just pretend it doesn’t exist.
Now: we know, and it is not “lies”, that Assad is a murderous dictator whose refusal to step down (and provide the Syrian people with the right that we enjoy) has led to the displacement of a third of the the population and 100,000 deaths. The war shows no sign of ending, and every day that we don’t Jihadists grow stronger and the people get poorer.
We should have intervened two years ago. We didn’t. That’s on our conscience, and a little humility about where to go would be much appreciated.
WRONG. we should NOT have intervened years ago. The UN should have stepped in, the International Criminal Court should have put Assad on trial. But we sabotaged this institution to protect our friend Saddam and others like Saddam and Assad, who happened to be doing us favors. Oops.
Obama wants us to believe that it is up to us to be judge, jury end executioner. that isn’t right now, would not have been right 2 years ago, and never will be right.
Besides being wrong, it is not something we can even really do. The executioner part we got down solid. The judge and jury? not so much. Remember Iraq?
And anyway what syria needs, if you or I really care about them, is a policeman to separate the sides. That is step one. Then someone else, a third party, impartial, without a stake in the outcome, must be judge and jury. THEN the executioner.
The fact that Obama, who was president of the Harvard Law review etc etc. , is trying to sell this, means he is a callous liar. you know he knows this is wrong.
Finally, on to the role of the policeman. We have not been successful playing this role in the middle east. Not at all. So besides trying to sell us a course of action which is morally wrong, Obama is selling us a promise that our government is not really capable of delivering, if you look at our recent experiences in very similar situations.
So it is bad all around. The ends do not justify the means, especially when we do not even HAVE the means, to do do anything, other than blow stuff up and knock out regimes leaving behind nothing but chaos.
(To your second comment)
Yes, the UN should have stepped in two years ago. But it didn’t. Putin vetoed anything even mildly anti-Assad. I do not want the US to have to act outside of international organisations but, as in Kosovo, the actions of veto-wielding members makes that unavoidable. The UN has to be reformed along strictly humanitarian principles but the Syrian people cannot afford to wait 20 years for that to happen.
I do remember Iraq; and you should too, because as many people have already died in Syria in two years, without our involvement, than in Iraq in 10 years WITH our involvement. Perspective, please? The failure to deal with the outbreak of sectarian violence in the following years does not mean the invasion was not justified. Most Iraqis, in 2006 – at the height of sectarian violence – said the invasion had been “worth it”.
An intervention would almost certainly lead to deaths; but non-intervention will almost certainly lead to a great deal more (and has ALREADY allowed 100,000 people to die when Assad hasn’t even fallen yet). Would you feel happy with that?
I don’t give a shit what Obama is saying. I’ve been advocating intervention for years, and at last he is, even only partially, agreeing with me, the little silent blogger hidden away in the internet.
Yeah, it is bad all around. That’s because the Syrians are in a revolution – but that’s an argument against revolutions, not the attempts to bring them to a peaceful end.
First of all the numbers are a little arguable (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War),
but I get what you’re saying. That is a good argument for a genuine humanitarian intervention.
However, Obama is most clearly NOT advocating putting an end to the fighting. In fact it appears he wants it to continue. Assad is winning and Obama and Kerry want to turn the tide, help the rebels win on their own. There is no talk of enforcing a peace at all.
Bottom line is, for me, the humanitarian arguments I hear coming out of the white house sound hollow.
If this was our concern, we would cut a deal with Russia. Nobody is talking about that.
Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:
You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Twitter account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Facebook account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Google+ account. ( Log Out / Change )
Connecting to %s
Notify me of new comments via email.
Notify me of new posts via email.
Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.
Join 1,218 other followers