Is it weird for you to watch Lief and BRTD as hawks?

[Lief 🗽]

Yes, it's hilarious at the hypocrisy. If Bush, McCain or Romney would have been President they, and many others, would be screaming to the skies about how this is illegal, etc.

I acknowledge that it's illegal under international law.

where within international law is it the job of the USA to unilaterally prosecute or punish war crimes?

Nowhere. Like I said I acknowledge that the United States bombing Syria is probably illegal under international law. (Though if you want to get into legal hypothetical trolling, considering that the US has recognized the opposition as the legitimate government of Syria, if they request our assistance in defending "their state" from Assad, that would be legal...)

[Boris]

Yeah, this strike is pointless idiocy and showmanship. It's cool that the we were able to defeat Imperial Japan, Fascist Italy, and 20% of the Wehrmacht, but the past 65 years of pseudo-moralistic dick waving really needs to come to an end.

[Keystone Phil]

Is it weird to watch them as Obama hacks? No, not at all.

[Bacon King]

Why do you think MSNBC, a network of Obama hacks, is so gung-ho about bombing Syria? Why, they're owned by GE, which also owns the presidency

The electric company's candidate in the last election was the robot

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

A foreign imperial power trying to bring peace with bombs will only cause more suffering than there already is in Syria, but of course the military contractors whose tentacles extend into our government media won't let that view see the light of day. Why do you think MSNBC, a network of Obama hacks, is so gung-ho about bombing Syria? Why, they're owned by GE, which also owns the presidency. Like all wars, the owning class sends the working class to battle.

I'm confused. So does MSNBC support bombing Syria because of GE or because of the military contractors? How do you explain Rachel Maddow's opposition - is she getting paid in Russian oil? If you're going to explain everything with an anti-capitalist conspiracy theory, you need to sort out the details.   

[Paul Kemp]

Anyway, calling our position "hawkish" is stupid. The so-called "peace" position basically boils down to allowing (and implicitly encouraging!) Assad to continue to indiscriminately massacre Syrian civilians, while confirming to all other dictators in the world that the use of chemical weapons is no longer taboo. How is that any more anti-war than our position?

Deaths will if anything spike if we get involved, and given that all of the fighting is in urban areas against a far more competent military force than Qaddafi's, anything more than a limited strike on chemical weapons assets (which obviously won't stop the killing or harm the regime's warmaking capacity in any way--95%+ of deaths have been from conventional weaponry, which is somehow okay) will result in massive collateral damage that won't do much to improve Syrian civilians' opinion of us.

A foreign imperial power trying to bring peace with bombs will only cause more suffering than there already is in Syria, but of course the military contractors whose tentacles extend into our government media won't let that view see the light of day. Why do you think MSNBC, a network of Obama hacks, is so gung-ho about bombing Syria? Why, they're owned by GE, which also owns the presidency. Like all wars, the owning class sends the working class to battle.

Getting back to Syria, a large chunk of the opposition is Sunni Islamists and that chunk is growing daily, leading me to suspect that if Assad is somehow ousted, he would be replaced with either bloody chaos or an Islamist regime. If the latter happens, expect it to be whitewashed like how Kosovo's president is a horrifically corrupt mob boss who butchered Serbs for their organs or how Libya is on the brink of collapse into tribal warfare while Islamists are cracking down on women's rights and making Rick Santorum look like Dan Savage in their homophobic rhetoric.

You are honestly the worst.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Anyway, calling our position "hawkish" is stupid. The so-called "peace" position basically boils down to allowing (and implicitly encouraging!) Assad to continue to indiscriminately massacre Syrian civilians, while confirming to all other dictators in the world that the use of chemical weapons is no longer taboo. How is that any more anti-war than our position?

Deaths will if anything spike if we get involved, and given that all of the fighting is in urban areas against a far more competent military force than Qaddafi's, anything more than a limited strike on chemical weapons assets (which obviously won't stop the killing or harm the regime's warmaking capacity in any way--95%+ of deaths have been from conventional weaponry, which is somehow okay) will result in massive collateral damage that won't do much to improve Syrian civilians' opinion of us.

A foreign imperial power trying to bring peace with bombs will only cause more suffering than there already is in Syria, but of course the military contractors whose tentacles extend into our government media won't let that view see the light of day. Why do you think MSNBC, a network of Obama hacks, is so gung-ho about bombing Syria? Why, they're owned by GE, which also owns the presidency. Like all wars, the owning class sends the working class to battle.

Getting back to Syria, a large chunk of the opposition is Sunni Islamists and that chunk is growing daily, leading me to suspect that if Assad is somehow ousted, he would be replaced with either bloody chaos or an Islamist regime. If the latter happens, expect it to be whitewashed like how Kosovo's president is a horrifically corrupt mob boss who butchered Serbs for their organs or how Libya is on the brink of collapse into tribal warfare while Islamists are cracking down on women's rights and making Rick Santorum look like Dan Savage in their homophobic rhetoric.

You are honestly the worst.

While Snowstalker is certainly getting demagogical it would be nice to provide some answer of substance by adressing his positions, though "arguments" like "you're the worst" are pretty typical for rather poor level of discussion here.

[Oakvale]

Anyway, calling our position "hawkish" is stupid. The so-called "peace" position basically boils down to allowing (and implicitly encouraging!) Assad to continue to indiscriminately massacre Syrian civilians, while confirming to all other dictators in the world that the use of chemical weapons is no longer taboo. How is that any more anti-war than our position?

Deaths will if anything spike if we get involved, and given that all of the fighting is in urban areas against a far more competent military force than Qaddafi's, anything more than a limited strike on chemical weapons assets (which obviously won't stop the killing or harm the regime's warmaking capacity in any way--95%+ of deaths have been from conventional weaponry, which is somehow okay) will result in massive collateral damage that won't do much to improve Syrian civilians' opinion of us.

A foreign imperial power trying to bring peace with bombs will only cause more suffering than there already is in Syria, but of course the military contractors whose tentacles extend into our government media won't let that view see the light of day. Why do you think MSNBC, a network of Obama hacks, is so gung-ho about bombing Syria? Why, they're owned by GE, which also owns the presidency. Like all wars, the owning class sends the working class to battle.

Getting back to Syria, a large chunk of the opposition is Sunni Islamists and that chunk is growing daily, leading me to suspect that if Assad is somehow ousted, he would be replaced with either bloody chaos or an Islamist regime. If the latter happens, expect it to be whitewashed like how Kosovo's president is a horrifically corrupt mob boss who butchered Serbs for their organs or how Libya is on the brink of collapse into tribal warfare while Islamists are cracking down on women's rights and making Rick Santorum look like Dan Savage in their homophobic rhetoric.

You are honestly the worst.

While Snowstalker is certainly getting demagogical it would be nice to provide some answer of substance by adressing his positions, though "arguments" like "you're the worst" are pretty typical for rather poor level of discussion here.

Snowstalker's tiresome nonsense does not deserve to be treated with the respect "addressing his positions" would imply.

[GMantis]

Attempting to uphold the standards of international law = hawkish neocons. Thanks, Atlas.

Attempting to uphold the standards of international law would require obtaining the assent of the UN Security council and attempting to actually reach a peaceful solution in Syria. It doesn't mean letting the US president do whatever he wants.

Supporting limited air-only strikes to prevent the use of WMDs makes someone a hawk now??  Jesus Christ....

The months long bombardment of Libya was also supposed a limit denial of airspace operation...

[Paul Kemp]

Anyway, calling our position "hawkish" is stupid. The so-called "peace" position basically boils down to allowing (and implicitly encouraging!) Assad to continue to indiscriminately massacre Syrian civilians, while confirming to all other dictators in the world that the use of chemical weapons is no longer taboo. How is that any more anti-war than our position?

Deaths will if anything spike if we get involved, and given that all of the fighting is in urban areas against a far more competent military force than Qaddafi's, anything more than a limited strike on chemical weapons assets (which obviously won't stop the killing or harm the regime's warmaking capacity in any way--95%+ of deaths have been from conventional weaponry, which is somehow okay) will result in massive collateral damage that won't do much to improve Syrian civilians' opinion of us.

A foreign imperial power trying to bring peace with bombs will only cause more suffering than there already is in Syria, but of course the military contractors whose tentacles extend into our government media won't let that view see the light of day. Why do you think MSNBC, a network of Obama hacks, is so gung-ho about bombing Syria? Why, they're owned by GE, which also owns the presidency. Like all wars, the owning class sends the working class to battle.

Getting back to Syria, a large chunk of the opposition is Sunni Islamists and that chunk is growing daily, leading me to suspect that if Assad is somehow ousted, he would be replaced with either bloody chaos or an Islamist regime. If the latter happens, expect it to be whitewashed like how Kosovo's president is a horrifically corrupt mob boss who butchered Serbs for their organs or how Libya is on the brink of collapse into tribal warfare while Islamists are cracking down on women's rights and making Rick Santorum look like Dan Savage in their homophobic rhetoric.

You are honestly the worst.

While Snowstalker is certainly getting demagogical it would be nice to provide some answer of substance by adressing his positions, though "arguments" like "you're the worst" are pretty typical for rather poor level of discussion here.

Sorry but I'm not addressing his faux teenage wisdom drivel he thinks to be spreading based off of some recent blog he just read. In fact, I feel a bit dirtied in responding to the self-righteous garbage you just posted.

[Peter the Lefty]

No.  What surprises me is how stupid and hypocritical the left is acting in general right now.  Most of the left supported the Libya intervention, yet suddenly now they're opposing an intervention against a regime FAR more brutal than Gaddafi's.  Yet they never even consider it. 

[AkSaber]

I'd like to know what the interventionists (the liberal and conservative ones) say is our right to intervene in an alleged chemical attack, when our nation indiscriminately uses depleted uranium, napalm, white phosphorous, cluster munitions, ect.

Is it not wrong when we do it?


Amazing how little things change...

[Marokai Backbeat]

No.  What surprises me is how stupid and hypocritical the left is acting in general right now.  Most of the left supported the Libya intervention, yet suddenly now they're opposing an intervention against a regime FAR more brutal than Gaddafi's.  Yet they never even consider it. 

Intervention in Libya had a clear and easily accomplished goal, in no small part due to Libya's topography and population distribution. There were clear and identifiable points of influence and the population centers are, in comparison to Syria, pretty widely spaced. It made intervention straightforward. In contrast, Syria has multiple factions at war with one another, with the conflict being largely asymmetrical, making any potential military intervention likely to only increase bloodshed and cause all kinds of collateral damage. We also had a clear international coalition involved in the intervention, as well as UN and NATO backing. None of those things are the case here.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Anyway, calling our position "hawkish" is stupid. The so-called "peace" position basically boils down to allowing (and implicitly encouraging!) Assad to continue to indiscriminately massacre Syrian civilians, while confirming to all other dictators in the world that the use of chemical weapons is no longer taboo. How is that any more anti-war than our position?

Deaths will if anything spike if we get involved, and given that all of the fighting is in urban areas against a far more competent military force than Qaddafi's, anything more than a limited strike on chemical weapons assets (which obviously won't stop the killing or harm the regime's warmaking capacity in any way--95%+ of deaths have been from conventional weaponry, which is somehow okay) will result in massive collateral damage that won't do much to improve Syrian civilians' opinion of us.

A foreign imperial power trying to bring peace with bombs will only cause more suffering than there already is in Syria, but of course the military contractors whose tentacles extend into our government media won't let that view see the light of day. Why do you think MSNBC, a network of Obama hacks, is so gung-ho about bombing Syria? Why, they're owned by GE, which also owns the presidency. Like all wars, the owning class sends the working class to battle.

Getting back to Syria, a large chunk of the opposition is Sunni Islamists and that chunk is growing daily, leading me to suspect that if Assad is somehow ousted, he would be replaced with either bloody chaos or an Islamist regime. If the latter happens, expect it to be whitewashed like how Kosovo's president is a horrifically corrupt mob boss who butchered Serbs for their organs or how Libya is on the brink of collapse into tribal warfare while Islamists are cracking down on women's rights and making Rick Santorum look like Dan Savage in their homophobic rhetoric.

You are honestly the worst.

While Snowstalker is certainly getting demagogical it would be nice to provide some answer of substance by adressing his positions, though "arguments" like "you're the worst" are pretty typical for rather poor level of discussion here.

Sorry but I'm not addressing his faux teenage wisdom drivel he thinks to be spreading based off of some recent blog he just read. In fact, I feel a bit dirtied in responding to the self-righteous garbage you just posted.

Considering that the most of your posts are either a self-righteous garbage or cheap one liners, I'm not suprised. Looks like the iggy button may have some use after all.

[Eraserhead]

Anyway, calling our position "hawkish" is stupid. The so-called "peace" position basically boils down to allowing (and implicitly encouraging!) Assad to continue to indiscriminately massacre Syrian civilians, while confirming to all other dictators in the world that the use of chemical weapons is no longer taboo. How is that any more anti-war than our position?

You seriously think doing this will keep Assad from killing more civilians? Why is that? Why would dropping a few bombs suddenly turn Assad into a reasonable person? It'll just add to the chaos, add to the body count (more middle eastern blood on US hands - yay!) and help to destabilize the region even further.

[Peter the Lefty]

No.  What surprises me is how stupid and hypocritical the left is acting in general right now.  Most of the left supported the Libya intervention, yet suddenly now they're opposing an intervention against a regime FAR more brutal than Gaddafi's.  Yet they never even consider it. 

Intervention in Libya had a clear and easily accomplished goal, in no small part due to Libya's topography and population distribution. There were clear and identifiable points of influence and the population centers are, in comparison to Syria, pretty widely spaced. It made intervention straightforward. In contrast, Syria has multiple factions at war with one another, with the conflict being largely asymmetrical, making any potential military intervention likely to only increase bloodshed and cause all kinds of collateral damage. We also had a clear international coalition involved in the intervention, as well as UN and NATO backing. None of those things are the case here.

It's not like we're officially picking a faction and backing it.  All the move would do would be to prevent more civilian casualties by knocking out a lot of the regime's chemical plants and military bases, thereby eliminating their advantage over the rebels.  And sorry, but I don't think we should just sit around and wait until Putin gives us the thumbs up (which will be never)

[H. Ross Peron]

Not really? They're both on the right side here.

[Boris]

Eraserhead and Marokai are correct. Unless you're insisting that a few days (?) of missile and airstrikes - which will probably cause, however minimal, civilian casualties - are actively going to turn the tide of the war in favor of the FSA, all you're doing is adding to the conflict's deathtoll. Maybe you can 'degrade' Assad's ability to use chemical weapons or whatever terminology Chuck Hagel used, but the casualty percentage caused by chemical weapons is, what, less than poison gas' lethality during World War I? Barack Obama, David Cameron, Francois Hollande, Lief, Xahar, BRTD, and Oakvale - while all quality gentlemen - are not thinking this through logically.

And come on guys, what years since we've been alive has the US not engaged in military action in the Greater Middle East (BRTD is an old so this doesn't apply to him)? 1994-1997, 1999-00? What good things have occurred as a result? Saddam Hussein expelled from Kuwait, Bin Laden dead, and a few thousand Libyan civilian saved? That's all we have to account for it.  Life was good sans Greater Middle Eastern Military intervention; the first step to recreating that zeitgeist is to halt this madness.

[Eraserhead]

To be fair, BRTD has been a bit more coy about his feelings on this than Lief. I'm assuming he's in favor based on his recent posts but I don't know if he's blatantly come out and said it yet. Hopefully he'll elucidate his feelings on this issue at some point.

[7,052,770]

Anyway, calling our position "hawkish" is stupid. The so-called "peace" position basically boils down to allowing (and implicitly encouraging!) Assad to continue to indiscriminately massacre Syrian civilians, while confirming to all other dictators in the world that the use of chemical weapons is no longer taboo. How is that any more anti-war than our position?

You seriously think doing this will keep Assad from killing more civilians? Why is that? Why would dropping a few bombs suddenly turn Assad into a reasonable person? It'll just add to the chaos, add to the body count (more middle eastern blood on US hands - yay!) and help to destabilize the region even further.

It's not about "convincing" him to do anything.  It's about taking away his means to slaughter innocents.  And yes, I see no reason why it wouldn't work.

I'm still very much a dove and would oppose ground troops. But I care more about preventing mass murder with WMDs than my pacifist cred.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

Anyway, calling our position "hawkish" is stupid. The so-called "peace" position basically boils down to allowing (and implicitly encouraging!) Assad to continue to indiscriminately massacre Syrian civilians, while confirming to all other dictators in the world that the use of chemical weapons is no longer taboo. How is that any more anti-war than our position?

You seriously think doing this will keep Assad from killing more civilians? Why is that? Why would dropping a few bombs suddenly turn Assad into a reasonable person? It'll just add to the chaos, add to the body count (more middle eastern blood on US hands - yay!) and help to destabilize the region even further.

It's not about "convincing" him to do anything.  It's about taking away his means to slaughter innocents.  And yes, I see no reason why it wouldn't work.

You do realize that the overwhelming majority of civilian deaths have and will continue to be with conventional weapons?

[DC Al Fine]

No.  What surprises me is how stupid and hypocritical the left is acting in general right now.  Most of the left supported the Libya intervention, yet suddenly now they're opposing an intervention against a regime FAR more brutal than Gaddafi's.  Yet they never even consider it. 

Intervention in Libya had a clear and easily accomplished goal, in no small part due to Libya's topography and population distribution. There were clear and identifiable points of influence and the population centers are, in comparison to Syria, pretty widely spaced. It made intervention straightforward. In contrast, Syria has multiple factions at war with one another, with the conflict being largely asymmetrical, making any potential military intervention likely to only increase bloodshed and cause all kinds of collateral damage. We also had a clear international coalition involved in the intervention, as well as UN and NATO backing. None of those things are the case here.

It's not like we're officially picking a faction and backing it.  All the move would do would be to prevent more civilian casualties by knocking out a lot of the regime's chemical plants and military bases, thereby eliminating their advantage over the rebels.  And sorry, but I don't think we should just sit around and wait until Putin gives us the thumbs up (which will be never)

Eliminating one faction's advantage sounds a lot like picking a side and backing it.

[Boris]

According to the BBC, "A report citing Turkish, Arab and Western intelligence agencies put Syria's stockpile at approximately 1,000 tonnes of chemical weapons, stored in 50 towns and cities." Depending on the distribution of this tonnage and if our intel is perfect we can probably take out some of this stockpile without collateral damage, but come on, we probably would have had a better shot at taking out all the missiles in Cuba in October 1962. This whole operation is simply about pretending that we uphold international norms, while simultaneously breaking international norms by sidestepping the UNSC, unless you feel like trolling in the manner that Lief mentioned.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

No.  What surprises me is how stupid and hypocritical the left is acting in general right now.  Most of the left supported the Libya intervention, yet suddenly now they're opposing an intervention against a regime FAR more brutal than Gaddafi's.  Yet they never even consider it. 

Intervention in Libya had a clear and easily accomplished goal, in no small part due to Libya's topography and population distribution. There were clear and identifiable points of influence and the population centers are, in comparison to Syria, pretty widely spaced. It made intervention straightforward. In contrast, Syria has multiple factions at war with one another, with the conflict being largely asymmetrical, making any potential military intervention likely to only increase bloodshed and cause all kinds of collateral damage. We also had a clear international coalition involved in the intervention, as well as UN and NATO backing. None of those things are the case here.

It's not like we're officially picking a faction and backing it.  All the move would do would be to prevent more civilian casualties by knocking out a lot of the regime's chemical plants and military bases, thereby eliminating their advantage over the rebels.  And sorry, but I don't think we should just sit around and wait until Putin gives us the thumbs up (which will be never)

Eliminating one faction's advantage sounds a lot like picking a side and backing it.

As does supplying weapons to that side and recognizing it as the sole legitimate government despite barely having an organized government.

[Eraserhead]

Anyway, calling our position "hawkish" is stupid. The so-called "peace" position basically boils down to allowing (and implicitly encouraging!) Assad to continue to indiscriminately massacre Syrian civilians, while confirming to all other dictators in the world that the use of chemical weapons is no longer taboo. How is that any more anti-war than our position?

You seriously think doing this will keep Assad from killing more civilians? Why is that? Why would dropping a few bombs suddenly turn Assad into a reasonable person? It'll just add to the chaos, add to the body count (more middle eastern blood on US hands - yay!) and help to destabilize the region even further.

It's not about "convincing" him to do anything.  It's about taking away his means to slaughter innocents.  And yes, I see no reason why it wouldn't work.

I'm still very much a dove and would oppose ground troops. But I care more about preventing mass murder with WMDs than my pacifist cred.

What? These bombings wouldn't do that. This is merely about "punishing" him.

Of course, only the people killed by our bombs will really be punished (whether they deserve it or not). Assad himself will not be among the dead.