Go educated yourself.
I'm not idealistic or naive enough to not know that geopolitics isn't about human lives. But human rights are. And an institution like the UN, specifically the UN, was called into existence to protect human rights, and if it isn't protecting human lives, it's not doing its job.
It's outdated, obsolete and corrupt to the core.
What, you mean me personally? I'm Belgian. We're still knee-deep in the murky waters of international diplomacy to get anything at all done about the DRC.Are you really so arrogant to claim the rest of the world doesn't care and won't even agree with involvement? That's some vigilante shit.
Well, since we aren't using the UN for this.... Maybe you should reread my post. Maybe you should listen to Obama, you know, the guy about to jump into Syria.
Maybe if we started using the UN, those awesome links would come into play.
So your country isn't going to help but you want the USA to get involved. Not much more I can say about that.
There was a time when I would have trusted Obama to handle this in the least-horrible way possible, whatever that turns out to be.
That time has passed. Now I'm just scared and depressed. I just, I cannot deal with this, I'm going to go read a billion internet comments about Miley Cyrus or something until my brain shuts down in self-defense.
Actually, I don't. And you won't ever find me saying that. I merely stated that relying on the UN because the mechanism is there, is stupid and lazy. It has failed to work for the two biggest genocides in recent history, and it's going to fail to work here. That doesn't mean I'm pro unilateral American action.
Which is fine. Fix the system or formally pull out. Agreeing to be part of the UN and then ignoring it is dangerous. It's just about as dangerous as letting WMD use happen (or similar high level war crimes) without any punishment. Unilateral action on the world stage is also incredibly dangerous.
I have a feeling that very few in the US will raise these objections if Congress signs off on Obama doing his 2 day strike to slap Syria for possible Sarin use. I'm hoping that Congress says no just like the Brit's Commons did. Congress reps have no responsibility for Syria and public opinion is an overwhelming "NO!"
This MSNBC segment was actually an interesting watch.
Alan Grayson can be a badass sometimes. This is one of them.
(skip to 2:45)
6:50 = high-fucking-five
Many A Perfect Circle fans complain about "eMOTIVe" but in times like these this album resonates a lot with me, perfect album for its context (the Iraq war in 2003/2004 and now this potential war with Syria).
Thanks for posting that video, great watch. Sign the Congressman's petition here: http://dontattacksyria.com
Guys, I know Hesitation Marks is coming out tonight/tomorrow in North America but come on! This topic also deserves attention.
I signed the petition.
Here is one more for you. Ben Swann is my absolute favorite indie journalist... hell, journalist in any form. I'm happy to have had a small part in funding this series.
I still need to digest everything he just said because it's all new to me. I also want to run through his sources, even though he is one of the very few journalists that I'd trust without them.
Boehner and Pelosi will support the resolution.
Are the Republicans really split on this?
I figured that if it passes the House, the Senate is a formality.
The Iran/Israel situation is also interesting. Israel was clearly sending a message to Iran with this morning's missile drill.
I don't think Iran is crazy enough to act on their threats if the US attack Syria.
Actually, most are undecided and quite a few say no.
But now a Fuck Congress proposal is brewing
Last edited by allegro; 09-03-2013 at 08:29 PM.
Oh, the irony: Obama promoting a war in the country where he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/04/politics/obama-sweden/
Speaking of CNN. They have tallied House and Senate votes so far.
House: http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2013/...html?hpt=hp_t1
Senate: http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2013/...unt/index.html
Edit:
McCain will not support the proposition in its current form. He actually wants to nuke Syria. OK not literally but he wants a more "aggressive" approach.
"McCain wants to see a provision that states U.S. action must be aimed at a "reversal of momentum on the ground."".
War lobbyists are out in full force obviously.
Last edited by Deepvoid; 09-04-2013 at 12:51 PM.
How to fuck up the Middle East more? Jump into the fray with guns blazing. It's like high school...someone starts a fight and we have to roll down the hall just to be a part of it.
I'm aware that this is probably a really dumb question, BUT...the problem is that chemical weapons are against the Geneva Convention, right? And it's the UN's job to enforce Geneva, right?
So, like...why is the US considering taking independent action? It's the UN's responsibility. Granted, the US is PART of the UN, but any action against Syria taken on the basis of violating the convention should be done by a UN-sanctioned body, even if that body includes US military...right?
Fuck, why did I engage? Why did I even try thinking?
So 49 to 200 with 184 undecided; the majority of them being Dems.
How many "yes" needed to pass the resolution? Simple majority?
Another development is Putin stating he might provide Syria with a missile shield if the US attack.
If Russia shoots down a US missile, would this be considered an act of war on the country.
An even better question: why the fuck aren't these questions being asked when debating this? Only a minority are asking.
As Alan Grayson said, the recourse for these violations is to bring the perps to international court... not fucking bomb them.
Obama's stance is arrogant as shit and ignores the agreements made with the UN. Even if the UN sucks, we could still get some of the other countries to back us on this international topic. It's looking like Congress will probably balance that out.
Oh good, so I'm not crazy- at least not in this particular instance.
It reminds me of years ago when Cheney said that the UN would have to agree with what the US was doing if they wanted to be considered "relevant"-- like, way to undermine the entire purpose of the UN there, dude. I mean, I get that the UN is kind of an idealistic body that probably can't function in reality the way it was conceived, but it really bothers me that they're not even trying to let the UN function the way it's supposed to.
Sorry, should have provided a link
http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...ria-g20-summit
It's being picked up by other medias including http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013...-syria-threat/
I think you know why, @DigitalChaos . The US doesn't give a SHIT about tired old things like the constitution, the geneva convention, or the dangers of unilateral action.
At the same time, it's also dangerous to draw a "red line" and not following through with it.
We need to draw fewer of these fucking red lines.
A congressman was positing that we reinstate the draft...and at first i was shocked and horrified. But then he fleshed out his point. If we all had a pound of flesh in this, if we ALL had something to lose...even members of congress and presidents, then maybe fewer of these "red lines" would be drawn.
Now i damn sure don't want a draft instated, and i don't think this congressman did either, but it was an interesting point.
I was starting to quit worrying about this, and then i heard that Putin might shoot down a missile attack...now i'm worried again. We have a bomb shelter basement, and that shit is CLEANED OUT now.
Official statement from Iran's Ayatollah Ali Khamenei: "We believe that the Americans are committing a folly and mistake in Syria and will, accordingly, take the blow and definitely suffer."
Hezbollah issued its first statement on the issue claiming that any military action against Syria's government is "a form of direct and organized terrorism." Adding that "these threats fail to conceal the true objectives of this strike aimed at mobilizing Israeli (strength) in the region in an attempt to impose the Western colonial grip,"