Senate Foreign Relations Committee votes to give President Obama the power to launch

[aowen]

It would be the 4th Geneva convention describing protection of civilians during war time, Protocol II, and the Geneva Protocol (the ban on chemical weapons). What are you all, fuck off retarded? Plus, Syria didn't sign one of those god damn things, because it didn't exist for the signing or drafting of most of that shit.

Moreover, if you think that bombing Syria is going to be anything but ineffective or worse, detrimental, you're next level retarded.

I am just outraged that these people are using weapons we didn't sell them, how dare they.

[aowen]

Chemical weapons are horrible. America has used them many times: Agent Orange (but we only meant to defoliate!), Napalm, etc. Assad's use of chemical weapons should not be at the crux of the argument for whether or not we enter Syria, despite what many would have you believe.

There are several more important aspects to consider, namely what would actually be achieved by bombing. Do we actually think the rebels are an altruistic people deserving of help who will be pioneers of peace in the region? Do we think the two sides will remain unified after the civil war is over? What will toppling the state do?

I understand wanting to punish Assad, but what makes him different from so many other people who deserve a spanking that are completely ignored. I do not think anyone feels like dicking around more in the Middle East, and a simple bombing campaign will do fuck all, so I'd say let this one fizzle out.

[Daldolma]

oh yeah as it relates to syria we're not interested bc of possible chemical weapons

we're interested because we want neither a pro-iran, anti-west dictator nor a fundamentalist regime. assad is pulling ahead so we have a stake in leveling the field to keep things in flux with nobody in power

duh

[aowen]

Most dictators are anti-west, otherwise they'd be social democrats instead of fascists authoritarians. Instead of bombing Syria, we could withdraw support for Israel and have like 1000x the diplomatic and security success with the region.

It is not our job to go leveling playing fields with bombs in sovereign entities, using human rights sporadically to justify it. I don't know how we haven't figured out to just leave the place alone, we just picked up where the British left off fucking all the people around.

[aowen]

Lest we forget the one semi-sane democratically elected leader in Iran we overthrew, resulting in a snowball of shitty regimes, fundamentalism, and anti-westernism. Stop selling weapons to those fuckers too, always bites us back when things inevitably go down the shitter.

[Daldolma]

it's not really a matter of it being our job. it's a matter of national interest

we have an interest in keeping syria destabilized

also our support for israel is our in with the whole middle east. we basically have american sparta in the center of the most oil-rich region on the planet for the cost of relative pennies. we give more to pakistan plus egypt than we give to israel, and we could launch a war from israel. pakistan wouldn't even give us osama. if we could buy pakistan as cheaply as we bought israel, we would

[aowen]

Originally Posted by Daldolma [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

it's not really a matter of it being our job. it's a matter of national interest

we have an interest in keeping syria destabilized

also our support for israel is our in with the whole middle east. we basically have american sparta in the center of the most oil-rich region on the planet for the cost of relative pennies. we give more to pakistan plus egypt than we give to israel, and we could launch a war from israel. pakistan wouldn't even give us osama. if we could buy pakistan as cheaply as we bought israel, we would

Actually it's not in our interest. Stable governments facilitate trade and business. Assad is not even winning, and I wouldn't put Iran on the list of highest plausible threats.

However, the bigger points I'd like to make are about Israel. Israel is not at all in our interest. While at one point you could argue that Israel was our door into the Middle East, now it is a source of tension with some of our closest allies, and strains our relations worldwide. It harms our relations with other countries in the Middle East, and implicates us in human rights violations. We have used so so many UN vetoes to trump even our Western allies. Israel also now serves as little economic interest to us in the international arena, but bears some economic importance domestically pertaining to maintaining the support from the Israel and Jewish lobbies. Israel has turned into a liability, alienating us from others, requiring foreign aid, and creating imbalance in a region that may have been on its way to healing wounds long ago if it wasn't constantly being interrupted.

Additionally, I do not support destabilizing a region and causing death to better one's own position. While I already said I don't think it does better our position, I wouldn't support the policy even if it did. Blatant imperialism is out of style, subtle economic manipulation is in, didn't you hear?

[Daldolma]

Originally Posted by aowen [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Actually it's not in our interest. Stable governments facilitate trade and business. Assad is not even winning, and I wouldn't put Iran on the list of highest plausible threats.

However, the bigger points I'd like to make are about Israel. Israel is not at all in our interest. While at one point you could argue that Israel was our door into the Middle East, now it is a source of tension with some of our closest allies, and strains our relations worldwide. It harms our relations with other countries in the Middle East, and implicates us in human rights violations. We have used so so many UN vetoes to trump even our Western allies. Israel also now serves as little economic interest to us in the international arena, but bears some economic importance domestically pertaining to maintaining the support from the Israel and Jewish lobbies. Israel has turned into a liability, alienating us from others, requiring foreign aid, and creating imbalance in a region that may have been on its way to healing wounds long ago if it wasn't constantly being interrupted.

Additionally, I do not support destabilizing a region and causing death to better one's own position. While I already said I don't think it does better our position, I wouldn't support the policy even if it did. Blatant imperialism is out of style, subtle economic manipulation is in, didn't you hear?

Stable Syria doesn't facilitate anything for us. They're a minor economy that we barely interact with. Cuba has a higher GDP.

And Israel is overtly our door into the Middle East. It's not a past tense thing, and the Middle East is going to be significantly more vital over the next 20 years than it was for the past 20 years. Keeping the oil flowing is of utmost importance to our economy and by extension our military.

The rest is basically immaterial. You're wrong about Israel's economic value to us, especially when contrasted with Syria -- it's fairly significant, particularly their weapons research and development. But ultimately replaceable. The UN is impotent and the "tension" you're referencing is bluster more than substance. The future of Palestine isn't going to crack NATO. And the concept of Israel keeping that region unstable is lulsy. Syria is ripping itself apart, Iraq is ripping itself apart, Afghanistan and Pakistan are half tribal, Egypt just had a full-on coup d'etat, Lebanon is being run by Hezbollah, and Saudi Arabia and Iran are about 18 months away from an arms race. That region is fucked beyond repair by 200 years of foreign intervention and Sunni-Shiite competition. Hating Israel is the only unifying force in the region.

[Stinkum]

Originally Posted by Daldolma [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Stable Syria doesn't facilitate anything for us. They're a minor economy that we barely interact with. Cuba has a higher GDP.

And Israel is overtly our door into the Middle East. It's not a past tense thing, and the Middle East is going to be significantly more vital over the next 20 years than it was for the past 20 years. Keeping the oil flowing is of utmost importance to our economy and by extension our military.

– the US has no bases or troop presence in Israel and stores only minimal military supplies in the country (and these under terms that allow these supplies to be used essentially at will by the IDF).

– Israeli bases are not available for US use.

– none of Israel’s neighbors will facilitate overflight for military aircraft transiting Israeli territory, let alone taking off from there. Israel is useless for purposes of strategic logistics or power projection.

– Israel is worse than irrelevant to the defense of Middle Eastern energy supplies; the US relationship with Israel has jeopardized these supplies (as in 1973), not contributed to securing them.

– US relations with Israel do not bolster US prestige in Middle Eastern oil-producing countries or assist the US to "dominate" them, they complicate and weaken US influence; they have at times resulted in the suspension of US relations with such countries.

– Israel does not have the diplomatic prestige or capacity to marshal support for US interests or policies globally or in its own region and does not do so; on the contrary, it requires constant American defense against political condemnation and sanctions by the international community.

– Israel does not fund aid programs in third countries to complement and support US foreign or military policy as other allies and strategic partners do.

[Daldolma]

Originally Posted by Stinkum [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

– the US has no bases or troop presence in Israel and stores only minimal military supplies in the country (and these under terms that allow these supplies to be used essentially at will by the IDF).

– Israeli bases are not available for US use.

– none of Israel’s neighbors will facilitate overflight for military aircraft transiting Israeli territory, let alone taking off from there. Israel is useless for purposes of strategic logistics or power projection.

– Israel is worse than irrelevant to the defense of Middle Eastern energy supplies; the US relationship with Israel has jeopardized these supplies (as in 1973), not contributed to securing them.

– US relations with Israel do not bolster US prestige in Middle Eastern oil-producing countries or assist the US to "dominate" them, they complicate and weaken US influence; they have at times resulted in the suspension of US relations with such countries.

– Israel does not have the diplomatic prestige or capacity to marshal support for US interests or policies globally or in its own region and does not do so; on the contrary, it requires constant American defense against political condemnation and sanctions by the international community.

– Israel does not fund aid programs in third countries to complement and support US foreign or military policy as other allies and strategic partners do.

copy-pasta from chas freeman. i can respond with a copy-pasta from blackwill and slocombe (http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/p...-united-states), but we can play that game all day. we both get it, it's a divisive issue. so let's talk practice instead of theory

why do you believe we went to war with iraq? do you think it was for democracy? for WMDs? for 9/11? no, we know it was for the oil and control in the region. what did that war cost us in terms of dollars, lives, and international esteem? now look at israel. what does israel cost us? it's a relative pittance. we've bought a proxy state in the middle east for next to nothing