Are you for or against intervening in Syria?

[IamInuit]

Clean up your own country. You have 20 thousand gun deaths a year while whining about some amendment written in ancient times and are a living breathing footprint for Einsteins definition of insanity. 40 million homeless.That is more then my country's population. Tell your clerics in political robes to quit saying you are exceptional. You are a failing State like Rome. Shit happens. Get your face out of other peoples business. Rake your own lawn.

[VictorCharlie]

Come on man at least know what you are talking about. The CDC has 11k homicides that were gun related in 2010. You can get over 20k if you add suicides but that isn't a gun control issue. More importantly the 40 million homeless is laughable. The number is obviously changing constantly but most professionals in the area say that there are 600-700k homeless at any given time with 1.5 million being homeless at one point or another annually. All that being said most of the US posters on the thread stated we should stay out of Syria so I'm not really sure who this rant is even addressing.

[Gandalf]

how do you define a democratic country as a rogue nation.

Firstly, I don't think anybody takes seriously the notion of America as a democratic nation. Sure, it has a voting system and you can vote every half decade, but to pretend that it is democratic is silly. It has the illusion of democracy, but fewer and fewer buy into the notion that politicians (aside from an obvious few) are anything more than corrupt careerists who are bought and paid for by corporations. You only have to look at the schism between what people want in polls and contrast that with the system that exists. What ordinary Americans want is largely ignored, a single payer health care system is an obvious case in point.

Secondly, the rogue elements are obvious domestically with mass surveillance of the population (Internet and phones), bailing out corrupt institutions, TSA thugs etc. Then of course you have overseas terrorism committed using US taxpayer money which is the real crime as tens of thousands die yearly because of US foreign policy. Those numbers include people killed in countries that the US sponsors, through nations invaded (Iraq recently saw 800 killed in a month and the US is clearly why Iraq is in a mess), through drone attacks on Pakistan. The list can go on, and then of course we have torture, detention without trial.

The latest is that America exchanges information about US citizens with Israel. Now what jurisdiction Israel has over America is beyond me. If that isn't a rogue state, then I am clearly living in the world of Winston Smith.

[VictorCharlie]

I'd argue that we have democracy but a facade of a constitutional republic. Democracy is nothing more than mob rule and I'd say that is a fair represention of our political system. I'm not really sure why you think there is a majority of American's that desire a single payer system for healthcare.

[Kirkland Laing]

with all due respect, Obama lost face in the international community. Obama is Carter no. 2 how can you call Israel a rogue nation. There enemies will not negotiate until Israel is driven into the sea. Putin sells Five billions a year in weapons to Syria. Syria will maintain stockpiles and Putin will make sure of that.

How did Obama lose face? Because he didn't get to bomb yet another country? And Obama unfortunately isn't a strong leader like Jimmy Carter.

Israel is a rogue nation because it ignores the will of international community in perpetuating a near half-century illegal military occupation of lands that are not theirs. They also refuse to abide by international standards and treaties over nuclear weapons, chemical weapons and so on. They've consistently ignored various comprehensive Arab peace settlements over the years so they can continue their slow-motion ethnic cleansing of the West Bank and Gaza.

[Kirkland Laing]

The President will take credit for the diplomatic results but lets be honest, he got his hand forced to not use military force by overwhelming public opinion in the US and being out maneuvered by Putin/Assad. If the administration had gotten their way we would be engaged militarily in the Syrian civil war.

On a side note, what is a rogue nation? This sounds like another one of your made up terms like illegal war.

A rogue nation is a nation that ignores the will of the international community and continues to do something the international community considers illegal. Like invading Iraq for instance.

[Kirkland Laing]

Here's Vladimir Putin's take on international law and America's illegal acts. Regardless of what you think about Putin it's hard not to agree with what he has to say, right?

Sidebar. Fucking google is garbage now that they've tweaked their algorithms to make more advertising dollars. I looked for this op-ed for the previous post, gave up and then had another go. A couple of years ago it would have been the first hit.



A Plea for Caution From Russia

What Putin Has to Say to Americans About Syria

By VLADIMIR V. PUTIN

Published: September 11, 2013

MOSCOW — RECENT events surrounding Syria have prompted me to speak directly to the American people and their political leaders. It is important to do so at a time of insufficient communication between our societies.

Relations between us have passed through different stages. We stood against each other during the cold war. But we were also allies once, and defeated the Nazis together. The universal international organization — the United Nations — was then established to prevent such devastation from ever happening again.
The United Nations’ founders understood that decisions affecting war and peace should happen only by consensus, and with America’s consent the veto by Security Council permanent members was enshrined in the United Nations Charter. The profound wisdom of this has underpinned the stability of international relations for decades.
No one wants the United Nations to suffer the fate of the League of Nations, which collapsed because it lacked real leverage. This is possible if influential countries bypass the United Nations and take military action without Security Council authorization.
The potential strike by the United States against Syria, despite strong opposition from many countries and major political and religious leaders, including the pope, will result in more innocent victims and escalation, potentially spreading the conflict far beyond Syria’s borders. A strike would increase violence and unleash a new wave of terrorism. It could undermine multilateral efforts to resolve the Iranian nuclear problem and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and further destabilize the Middle East and North Africa. It could throw the entire system of international law and order out of balance.
Syria is not witnessing a battle for democracy, but an armed conflict between government and opposition in a multireligious country. There are few champions of democracy in Syria. But there are more than enough Qaeda fighters and extremists of all stripes battling the government. The United States State Department has designated Al Nusra Front and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, fighting with the opposition, as terrorist organizations. This internal conflict, fueled by foreign weapons supplied to the opposition, is one of the bloodiest in the world.
Mercenaries from Arab countries fighting there, and hundreds of militants from Western countries and even Russia, are an issue of our deep concern. Might they not return to our countries with experience acquired in Syria? After all, after fighting in Libya, extremists moved on to Mali. This threatens us all.
From the outset, Russia has advocated peaceful dialogue enabling Syrians to develop a compromise plan for their own future. We are not protecting the Syrian government, but international law. We need to use the United Nations Security Council and believe that preserving law and order in today’s complex and turbulent world is one of the few ways to keep international relations from sliding into chaos. The law is still the law, and we must follow it whether we like it or not. Under current international law, force is permitted only in self-defense or by the decision of the Security Council. Anything else is unacceptable under the United Nations Charter and would constitute an act of aggression.
No one doubts that poison gas was used in Syria. But there is every reason to believe it was used not by the Syrian Army, but by opposition forces, to provoke intervention by their powerful foreign patrons, who would be siding with the fundamentalists. Reports that militants are preparing another attack — this time against Israel — cannot be ignored.
It is alarming that military intervention in internal conflicts in foreign countries has become commonplace for the United States. Is it in America’s long-term interest? I doubt it. Millions around the world increasingly see America not as a model of democracy but as relying solely on brute force, cobbling coalitions together under the slogan “you’re either with us or against us.”
But force has proved ineffective and pointless. Afghanistan is reeling, and no one can say what will happen after international forces withdraw. Libya is divided into tribes and clans. In Iraq the civil war continues, with dozens killed each day. In the United States, many draw an analogy between Iraq and Syria, and ask why their government would want to repeat recent mistakes.
No matter how targeted the strikes or how sophisticated the weapons, civilian casualties are inevitable, including the elderly and children, whom the strikes are meant to protect.
The world reacts by asking: if you cannot count on international law, then you must find other ways to ensure your security. Thus a growing number of countries seek to acquire weapons of mass destruction. This is logical: if you have the bomb, no one will touch you. We are left with talk of the need to strengthen nonproliferation, when in reality this is being eroded.
We must stop using the language of force and return to the path of civilized diplomatic and political settlement.
A new opportunity to avoid military action has emerged in the past few days. The United States, Russia and all members of the international community must take advantage of the Syrian government’s willingness to place its chemical arsenal under international control for subsequent destruction. Judging by the statements of President Obama, the United States sees this as an alternative to military action.
I welcome the president’s interest in continuing the dialogue with Russia on Syria. We must work together to keep this hope alive, as we agreed to at the Group of 8 meeting in Lough Erne in Northern Ireland in June, and steer the discussion back toward negotiations.
If we can avoid force against Syria, this will improve the atmosphere in international affairs and strengthen mutual trust. It will be our shared success and open the door to cooperation on other critical issues.
My working and personal relationship with President Obama is marked by growing trust. I appreciate this. I carefully studied his address to the nation on Tuesday. And I would rather disagree with a case he made on American exceptionalism, stating that the United States’ policy is “what makes America different. It’s what makes us exceptional.” It is extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivation. There are big countries and small countries, rich and poor, those with long democratic traditions and those still finding their way to democracy. Their policies differ, too. We are all different, but when we ask for the Lord’s blessings, we must not forget that God created us equal.


http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/12/op....html?hp&_r=1&

[Kirkland Laing]

Here's Bill Maher putting it another way:

[VictorCharlie]

A rogue nation is a nation that ignores the will of the international community and continues to do something the international community considers illegal. Like invading Iraq for instance.

So when a nation does what it thinks is in its best interest regardless of a international popularity contest its "rogue". Got it. Rogue nation is a dumb term. Iran, NK, Israel, Syria, China, US, UK and Russia aren't "rogue". They (or I should say their leaders) do what they think is in their best interests. Iran/NK think they should have nuclear capabilities, frankly I don't care nor do I blame them. Israel is surrounded by nations that would and have previously attacked them so I don't blame them for ensuring their own continued existance. China/US/Russia are all world powers that whether correctly or not believe they need to have hegemony over their proxies in order to prosper. There is nothing rogue about doing what we all do as humans every day and that is look out for #1.

[VictorCharlie]

I got a chuckle out of this.

[Gandalf]

A rogue nation is a nation that ignores the will of the international community and continues to do something the international community considers illegal. Like invading Iraq for instance.

So when a nation does what it thinks is in its best interest regardless of a international popularity contest its "rogue". Got it. Rogue nation is a dumb term. Iran, NK, Israel, Syria, China, US, UK and Russia aren't "rogue". They (or I should say their leaders) do what they think is in their best interests. Iran/NK think they should have nuclear capabilities, frankly I don't care nor do I blame them. Israel is surrounded by nations that would and have previously attacked them so I don't blame them for ensuring their own continued existance. China/US/Russia are all world powers that whether correctly or not believe they need to have hegemony over their proxies in order to prosper. There is nothing rogue about doing what we all do as humans every day and that is look out for #1.

America is rogue because of its foreign policy shockers largely executed in the past 50 years. You could argue that America is acting in its own interests and of course any nation would argue that. However, going off to Vietnam for instance and slaughtering 2 million people based upon lies is clearly leaning towards not only rogue, but plain demented. You see it in dozens of countries right across the globe be it invasion, leader assassination, arming of terrorists etc etc. America being a rogue state is putting it nicely, it is far worse than a rogue state I am sure in the eyes of the vast bulk of the world that has suffered at its hands.

Does Denmark behave like America? Does Switzerland? Does Canada? America is completely out of synch with relatively normal nations. Also you seem to understand the term rogue due to the types of nations you listed. Countries like Syria and Iran are nothing compared to the genocide nations like North Korea, America or those who still think concentration camps and apartheid are fashionable. There are plenty of rogue nations, but the leader is obviously America. I would imagine the numbers of people killed either directly or indirectly by America is greater than all those other countries you suggested combined. It is numerically even worse when you factor in how the place was created too. North Korea kills millions domestically, but the US did the same in its early years and then it went on to carry out the murder spree internationally. North Korea is relatively benign except for the occasional missile launch. Now the same could not in a million years be suggested of America.

America being angry with Syria or Iran is an absurdity considering everything that it is. It chooses to be rogue, it could always choose to be a normal nation, but instead it chooses exceptionalism, which is another word to describe an out of control psychopath.

[Kirkland Laing]

A rogue nation is a nation that ignores the will of the international community and continues to do something the international community considers illegal. Like invading Iraq for instance.

So when a nation does what it thinks is in its best interest regardless of a international popularity contest its "rogue". Got it. Rogue nation is a dumb term. Iran, NK, Israel, Syria, China, US, UK and Russia aren't "rogue". They (or I should say their leaders) do what they think is in their best interests. Iran/NK think they should have nuclear capabilities, frankly I don't care nor do I blame them. Israel is surrounded by nations that would and have previously attacked them so I don't blame them for ensuring their own continued existance. China/US/Russia are all world powers that whether correctly or not believe they need to have hegemony over their proxies in order to prosper. There is nothing rogue about doing what we all do as humans every day and that is look out for #1.

Not an international popularity contest, an international treaty. Like the UN treaty. If you sign the UN treaty and then go off invading another country without agreement from the UN Security Council then you're going against the will of the international community and breaking the treaty you signed up to.

Or if you don't sign treaties that everybody else has signed up to like the chemical weapons treaty. Look at the small list of countries that haven't signed and you see the usual suspects when it comes to ignoring international law.

[VictorCharlie]

America is rogue because of its foreign policy shockers largely executed in the past 50 years. You could argue that America is acting in its own interests and of course any nation would argue that. However, going off to Vietnam for instance and slaughtering 2 million people based upon lies is clearly leaning towards not only rogue, but plain demented. You see it in dozens of countries right across the globe be it invasion, leader assassination, arming of terrorists etc etc. America being a rogue state is putting it nicely, it is far worse than a rogue state I am sure in the eyes of the vast bulk of the world that has suffered at its hands.

Does Denmark behave like America? Does Switzerland? Does Canada? America is completely out of synch with relatively normal nations. Also you seem to understand the term rogue due to the types of nations you listed. Countries like Syria and Iran are nothing compared to the genocide nations like North Korea, America or those who still think concentration camps and apartheid are fashionable. There are plenty of rogue nations, but the leader is obviously America. I would imagine the numbers of people killed either directly or indirectly by America is greater than all those other countries you suggested combined. It is numerically even worse when you factor in how the place was created too. North Korea kills millions domestically, but the US did the same in its early years and then it went on to carry out the murder spree internationally. North Korea is relatively benign except for the occasional missile launch. Now the same could not in a million years be suggested of America.

America being angry with Syria or Iran is an absurdity considering everything that it is. It chooses to be rogue, it could always choose to be a normal nation, but instead it chooses exceptionalism, which is another word to describe an out of control psychopath.

All of western Europe was sitting with their hands out post WWII and was pretty happy for a US policy that supported intervention. They were pretty happy to let their defense capabilities atrophy and have the US do the heavy lifting for 50 years during the cold war and still depend on US military support. Again when the European nations wanted to intervene in Libya they were sitting hat in hand for US assistance b/c even the UK didn't have the capability to neutralize out of date Libyan air defense w/o a large loss of life. The world has been very grateful when there have been humanitarian disasters and US service men and women are the first their to provide support. Personally I'd let the world go it alone and not lift a finger to help but for 60+ years American presidents have more than obliged the world to be its police. The world doesn't get to have it both ways. You can't ask for a nation to fund the rebuilding of your continent, secure it for half century, settle your internal conflicts and be the #1 contributor to humanitarian assistance then bitch and complain b/c you don't always like the way they go about it.

[VictorCharlie]

Not an international popularity contest, an international treaty. Like the UN treaty. If you sign the UN treaty and then go off invading another country without agreement from the UN Security Council then you're going against the will of the international community and breaking the treaty you signed up to.

Or if you don't sign treaties that everybody else has signed up to like the chemical weapons treaty. Look at the small list of countries that haven't signed and you see the usual suspects when it comes to ignoring international law.

Please name the specific treaty that the US signed that stipulates what makes a military action legal. Mind you we've previously pointed out that the UN Charter is not binding international law. Outside of the US Congress and President there isn't any other legal process for American military action. End of story. Call it immoral, unpopular, etc but trying to apply a legal basis to war is plain absurd.

[Kirkland Laing]

Not an international popularity contest, an international treaty. Like the UN treaty. If you sign the UN treaty and then go off invading another country without agreement from the UN Security Council then you're going against the will of the international community and breaking the treaty you signed up to.

Or if you don't sign treaties that everybody else has signed up to like the chemical weapons treaty. Look at the small list of countries that haven't signed and you see the usual suspects when it comes to ignoring international law.

Please name the specific treaty that the US signed that stipulates what makes a military action legal. Mind you we've previously pointed out that the UN Charter is not binding international law. Outside of the US Congress and President there isn't any other legal process for American military action. End of story. Call it immoral, unpopular, etc but trying to apply a legal basis to war is plain absurd.

I'll leave it to one of the world's foremost international lawyers to answer this :


BBC NEWS | Middle East | Iraq war illegal, says Annan