This Disingenuous Syria case is beneasth us.

[cthulu2016]

Last edited Wed Sep 4, 2013, 08:26 PM - Edit history (9)

On edit: I am surprised by the general level of disinterest in the context of what is going on, versus arguing within a dictated frame of the place of nerve toxins in international law. That is an interesting and important topic, but we, the USA, are not reacting to a singular event (gas attack) out of the blue, but rather incorporating the implications that event into a broader context of existing and planned intervention in the Syrian civil war.

The official policy of the USA is, "Assad must go." (fact)

The USA is giving opposition fighters supplies and weapons. (fact)

The CIA is training and arming "cells" of Syrian opposition fighters with the goal of redeploying them back into Syria to overthrow Assad. (fact)


Those things were true a month ago, with or without the recent very real, very huge and very Assad-forces launched nerve gas attacks.

So what is the point of all the bullshit about how we aren't picking a side in the Syrian civil war, aren't getting involved, regime change isn't our objective, etc..

We were, and are already involved in the Syrian civil war, and there is nothing automatically wrong with that. It is not an intrinsically wicked policy. Assad really has been off the chain, and the threat of Syria going theocratic is even worse (IMO) than the very awful status quo.

So the question now being debated is whether the US military should get directly involved to the limited degree of supporting the opposition by disabling Syria's air force.

Maybe we should. There may well be a good argument to be made. In practical terms, taking out the Syrian air-force would be a big help to the opposition we are supplying, training, arming. If their cause is worth arming and training, maybe it is also worth tactically assisting.

And whatever motivated us to have a side before, Assad gassing some very large number of citizens with forbidden weapons could only add to an argument for greater intervention.

But the first step has to be to treat the citizenry with some minimal respect and present the question honestly, rather than launching a bunch of propaganda about Hitler, and how we don't want to affect the outcome of the war, and generally seeking to trick people into supporting a ramping up of existing intervention.

Say the nerve gas attacks make our ongoing intervention more morally and tactically urgent, and that we need to do more to assist the rebels... like disabling the Syrian air-force. Make your real case.

And if you can't sell that real case then that is just what it is.

[cthulu2016]

1. .

[riderinthestorm]

2. K&R chthulu... we really do need more honesty in this convo. Agreed 100% nt

[GeorgeGist]

3. Disingenuous is what they got ...

oughta be a clue to YOU.

[Harmony Blue]

4. Well here is my view

1. "Assad must go"

If there is no concrete plan of action other than telling him to leave the country then this is useless.

2. Supplies from USA to rebels only reached them a week ago confirmed by most sources

3. The USA trained rebels in Jordan only entered Syria a week ago as the opposition was losing some ground and needed a counter offensive. It could be argued that this counter offensive surge by CIA trained rebels from Jordan actually escalated the conflict and was the catalyst for chemical weapon use.

[cthulu2016]

6. Both 2 and 3 are pre-existing

I don't doubt that the gas attacks focused/energized the effort considerably, but both policies were in place before that.

The weapons-supplying policy change took place two months ago, and it's implausible to think that forces were assembled outside Syria, trained, equipped and sent back into Syria in a matter of days in response to the big gas attack.

[yurbud]

5. they also need to say who is paying for their convictions and what they hope to gain

Probably a mix of oil & pipeline interests, international banks, and Israel.

I included that in my White House petition on this:

EXCERPT:

It is also doubtful that the stated justifications for the military attack are the actual reason, given the bipartisan support for brutal and oppressive regimes that serve business interests who donate to both parties.

Do not attack Syria, but instead, explain publicly who is demanding this attack and what they expect to gain from it.

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/us-had-no-moral-authority-punish-syrias-war-crimes-while-our-own-war-criminals-arent-prosecuted/XK2FcyFj

[yurbud]

7. if they made an honest case, people would be more likely to say no.

on the other hand, this one time, presenting it as if there is no moral "no" option is actually pissing people off more than giving the real reasons.

[Romulox]

8. I heard Assad tore the babies straight from the incubators! Isn't that enough for you????

[deutsey]

9. And then the bastard had them drowned in the Gulf of Tonkin

[woo me with science]

10. This crew?

[bvar22]

11. Do you know who "The Rebels" are?

The last time we "helped The Rebels",
we radicalized a country, and chased them straight into the open arms of Islamic Fundamentalists. and Sharia Law.
Libyans Say Sharia Will Be Law of the Land
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/12/11/libyans-say-sharia-will-be-law-of-the-land.html


"Violence sometimes may have cleared away obstructions quickly, but it never has proved itself creative."--- Albert Einstein

[cthulu2016]

12. I don't think "the rebels" are a homogeneous bloc

but I share your concerns about theocracy

[cthulu2016]

13. .