THIS is why we're intervening in Libya

[JimC]

Coito ergo sum wrote:

Rule by majority, without some check on the majority's discretion is not necessarily better. Much writing has been done on the "tyranny of the majority." It's the majority rule that gave UK an "established" church of England. You have a "Sovereign Queen" who is ex officio Supreme Governor of the Church of England, and she is required by the Act of Settlement 1701 to "join in communion with the Church of England." As part of the coronation ceremony, the Sovereign swears an oath to "maintain and preserve inviolably the settlement of the Church of England, and the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government thereof, as by law established in England" before being crowned by the senior cleric of the Church, the Archbishop of Canterbury – a similar oath concerning the established Church of Scotland, which is a Presbyterian church, having already been given by the new sovereign in his or her Accession Council. All clergy of the Church swear an oath of allegiance to the Sovereign before taking office.

I mean - really - given the uproar the world over because President Obama voluntarily said, "...so help me God" at the end of his oath of office - what should be the reaction that the titular head of the British State and the Church (no separation of church and state at all in England) making that kind of an oath? Where is the protection against this complete abrogation of separation of church and state? Every taxpayer in the UK supports that financially.

And yet, for all the absurdity of this church/state connection, Britain has a much higher proportion of people without religious beliefs...

Not claiming cause and effect, mind...

[Coito ergo sum]

Coito ergo sum wrote:

Rule by majority, without some check on the majority's discretion is not necessarily better. Much writing has been done on the "tyranny of the majority." It's the majority rule that gave UK an "established" church of England. You have a "Sovereign Queen" who is ex officio Supreme Governor of the Church of England, and she is required by the Act of Settlement 1701 to "join in communion with the Church of England." As part of the coronation ceremony, the Sovereign swears an oath to "maintain and preserve inviolably the settlement of the Church of England, and the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government thereof, as by law established in England" before being crowned by the senior cleric of the Church, the Archbishop of Canterbury – a similar oath concerning the established Church of Scotland, which is a Presbyterian church, having already been given by the new sovereign in his or her Accession Council. All clergy of the Church swear an oath of allegiance to the Sovereign before taking office.

I mean - really - given the uproar the world over because President Obama voluntarily said, "...so help me God" at the end of his oath of office - what should be the reaction that the titular head of the British State and the Church (no separation of church and state at all in England) making that kind of an oath? Where is the protection against this complete abrogation of separation of church and state? Every taxpayer in the UK supports that financially.

And yet, for all the absurdity of this church/state connection, Britain has a much higher proportion of people without religious beliefs...

Not claiming cause and effect, mind...

Whether people voluntarily or privately choose to adopt or hold a religious belief is their own affair. The important part is that the government stay out of it. You may have more people choosing not to adopt a religious belief, but even the nonbelievers are paying for the maintenance and upkeep of the church, and supporting a government that is sworn under oath to further a religious belief that the nonbelievers do not share.

[MrJonno]

UK political system big difference , Parliament (House of Commons) is supreme as elected by the people, not the lords, not judges or even Queen

There are plenty of methods of slowing what parliament want does and asking them to rethink but there is nothing to ultimately veto them. A judge can say parliament is acting illegally under existing laws, so parliament has to go back and change the law but it can't ultimately block its will for ever

Thats the way it should be, if the will of 51% of the British population is to exterminate the other 49% I see absolutely no point in having any 'superior laws' preventing them from doing so. You prevent that but having a share liberal education and at least some common values. And if that failed I would hope the UN bombed us to hell preferable after I had got out

[Seth]

There was no credible evidence.

There was plenty of credible evidence. Enough that the Coalition and the Congress were convinced.

You mean they thought they could cobble together enough support based on lies to convince gullible people like you, what they were doing was right. Read the actual reports not the propaganda. That leaked document is telling. The head of MI6 says explicitly that the US are fitting policy to justify something that is thinly supported. That it was a foregone conclusion basically case or not. You seem to indulge in straight up believing everything politicians say, and dismissing anything that is said off the record and hence is likely to be the real story. I really hope that brand of drug works to ease the pain of cognitive dissonance for you.

Hindsight is always 20/20. I judge the actions of the Coalition on the evidence that was available at the time the decision was made, and no matter how "thin" you, or anyone else might believe the evidence is now, at the time, it was credible and sufficient to justify re-opening hostilities for NO OTHER REASON than Saddam's violation of the Cease Fire Agreement.

Let me make this perfectly clear: the US did NOT need any evidence at all in respect to WMD's other than the fact that Saddam failed to abide by the terms of the cease fire. Period. We had the absolute right, both legally and morally, to invade Iraq a second time AT ANY TIME after Saddam's FIRST violation of the cease fire agreement. That we waited 12 years and through 14 egregious violation of UN inspection agreements is evidence of our national goodwill and willingness to try to let the UN system work it out.

Saddam's known and extensive support, both financially and physically for terrorism brought the issue to a head with the events of 9/11, and our Congress decided it was time to remove him. We were right to do so, and the timing was perfectly acceptable, given the repeated and egregious violations of the UN accords by Saddam.

You don't like that decision, well, it just sucks to be you I guess, but you weren't in charge, nor are you now.

Bush lied,

An unproven assertion. No one has ever been able to point to a single "lie" that Bush told. All his statements were based on the best military and covert intelligence available at the time. Saddam was actively TRYING to convince everyone that he DID have WMD programs. He admitted as much before they hanged him. His records confirm this. The fact that his sham-WMD programs (and his actual WMD stockpiles of Sarin) turned out to be a sham is not the result of a "lie" by the President. Those who made the decisions had access to the same raw intel data indicating Saddam's refusal to cooperate with UN inspections and his "shell game" of moving truck convoys of presumed WMD components and manufacturing equipment out of facilities as UN inspectors were enroute to the facilities for inspection was adequate evidence upon which to base the decision to restart hostilities. The fact that this "shell game," which was observed by satellites, may or may not have been actually moving nuclear materials or other WMD's is irrelevant. We have every right to make military decisions on the available intelligence information, and that was substantial and indicated that Saddam was continuing WMD research and development in direct violation of the UN mandates and the cease-fire agreement.

If you claim "Bush lied," then produce a single statement and the proof that he knowingly falsified the evidence.

He said there was good evidence of WMDs and terrorist support in Afghanistan knowing full well such a statement relied on scant evidence if any.

"Scant" is a subjective term. You may think it "scant," but you're not paid the big bucks to make the decisions. Bush was. There's a fuck-load of information out there that you still aren't privy to because it's still classified, or that you are choosing to ignore, like the statements of Saddam's Air Marshall who supervised the transport of WMDs out of Iraq just before the second invasion. Those WMDs were what was used on the Kurds in 1988:

Bush never lied, OMFG the worlds first honest politician, fuck me lets have a parade! All politicians lie, just how naive are you? It just so happens Bush was caught several times by the media doing so.

And yet you have yet to produce any evidence of this assertion. Sure, politicians lie. I imagine Bush lied. But was he lying about the justifications for going to war in Iraq? Nope.

he wanted to settle some unfinished business his father had started, as a bonus there were vast oil fields there, the Iraqi people were of secondary concern.

So how come we didn't seize the Iraqi oil fields, hm? If oil imperialism was our motivation, please explain why Iraq is running its own oil fields and is selling their oil on the free market? Explain to us why US troops are not occupying the oil fields and delivery infrastructure and why every drop of Iraqi oil is not coming to the US without a dime being paid to Iraq?

Any answers to that, Einstein? You've been drinking the leftist Kool-Aid, my friend.

I'm not a leftist so no I haven't.

You don't have to be a leftist to drink their Kool-Aid, my friend.

There are right wing people who believe Bushes motivations were anything but the stated ones,

And yet no evidence is forthcoming of this purported "motivation." Significant omission. What your argument amounts to is biased speculation, not fact. It's your opinion and you're entitled to it, but you're not entitled to your own facts.

so don't panzy around with this leftist accusation with me, it might fly with other idiots to use blanket terms, but the facts still remain and they have nothing to do with politics. Facts are just facts whatever colour you want to paint them.

When you state a fact, I'll be glad to examine it. So far you've stated opinion and nothing else. Care to address the use of Sarin on the Kurds, and explain away the transport of more than 40 plane-loads of Sarin-filled weapons of mass destruction to Syria?

Bushes main goal was to remove Saddam he says this clearly to press after the fact.

So what? Saddam needed to be removed. He violated UN mandates 14 times in 12 years, concealed WMDs, transported them to Syria, played a shell-game with UN inspectors, interfered with their inspections, and, according to his own statements and documents, tried really fucking hard to convince everyone that he WAS creating nuclear and biological weapons of mass destruction. I don't fault Bush, or Blair, or anybody else in the Coalition for believing what Saddam tried so hard to convince the world was the truth. That he was lying is utterly irrelevant.

He also admits that his motivations were far from clear to the press and he's said himself he's not always been 100% honest with them.

Quotes please.

I never said his driving goal was to win oil fields.

Bullshit. You said, and I quote, "...as a bonus there were vast oil fields there." This clearly implies that Bush's motivations for going to war was in some way related to US domination of Iraq's oil fields, which is, yet again, complete horseshit.

Amongst his many driving goals was to win them for a democratic Iraq and hence open them up to the West as resource sources, hence the first and greatest priority was to overthrow Saddam.

Removing a brutal, genocidal dictator who was a threat to the world and working to ensure that the people of Iraq can build a democracy of their own was the goal, and an admirable one at that. Does this mean that the hope is that Iraq will be friendly to the US? Of course. So what? Big deal. That's called "international geopolitics" and we need make no apology whatsoever for trying to build relationships with countries that contain essential strategic resources.

There was an agreement, that the US would consult the UN before it invaded unless its troops were in danger, you broke it. Deal with it. Everyone thinks it was illegal except US it would be funny if it wasn't tragic.

Fuck the UN. And fuck anybody who thinks we need the UN's permission to protect our nation or our strategic international interests.

I mean do you actually believe your own bs? When you hear it like half a dozen times doesn't repeating the same shit no one except the US believes get tiresome? You're only lying to yourself anyway. I mean I gave up trying to reason with people ages ago. No matter what documents you point out, who signed what, what agreements were made. People just chose to believe what the hell they like anyway. It's tiresome.

Unlike you, I've actually done some research on the matter, so my conclusions are founded in fact, not anti-American propaganda. But, if you don't like the discussion, feel free to fuck off elsewhere.

Why don't you fuck off somewhere else and take your delusional bilge with you then? Since its clearly horse shit propaganda that you have manured over your opinion.

Because I'm not the one who has a problem with the debate, you are.

Paragraph 12 clearly states that the UN SC must be consulted if there is to be a decision to invade. The US agrees unless it is attacked to abide by that. Then it breaks its word.

Fuck the UN Security Council. The United States is a sovereign nation not beholden to anyone, particularly not a bunch of ineffectual boobs in blue helmets. We do what we think is right, and the rest of y'all can go fuck yourselves if you don't like it. That's why we maintain the finest, most effective fighting force on the face of the earth, so that we can tell pussies like you and the UN to go fuck themselves.

You don't like it, bring it on...at your own peril.

[Aos Si]

There was no credible evidence.

There was plenty of credible evidence. Enough that the Coalition and the Congress were convinced.

You mean they thought they could cobble together enough support based on lies to convince gullible people like you, what they were doing was right. Read the actual reports not the propaganda. That leaked document is telling. The head of MI6 says explicitly that the US are fitting policy to justify something that is thinly supported. That it was a foregone conclusion basically case or not. You seem to indulge in straight up believing everything politicians say, and dismissing anything that is said off the record and hence is likely to be the real story. I really hope that brand of drug works to ease the pain of cognitive dissonance for you.

Hindsight is always 20/20. I judge the actions of the Coalition on the evidence that was available at the time the decision was made, and no matter how "thin" you, or anyone else might believe the evidence is now, at the time, it was credible and sufficient to justify re-opening hostilities for NO OTHER REASON than Saddam's violation of the Cease Fire Agreement.

Let me make this perfectly clear: the US did NOT need any evidence at all in respect to WMD's other than the fact that Saddam failed to abide by the terms of the cease fire. Period. We had the absolute right, both legally and morally, to invade Iraq a second time AT ANY TIME after Saddam's FIRST violation of the cease fire agreement. That we waited 12 years and through 14 egregious violation of UN inspection agreements is evidence of our national goodwill and willingness to try to let the UN system work it out.

Saddam's known and extensive support, both financially and physically for terrorism brought the issue to a head with the events of 9/11, and our Congress decided it was time to remove him. We were right to do so, and the timing was perfectly acceptable, given the repeated and egregious violations of the UN accords by Saddam.

You don't like that decision, well, it just sucks to be you I guess, but you weren't in charge, nor are you now.

Bush lied,

An unproven assertion. No one has ever been able to point to a single "lie" that Bush told. All his statements were based on the best military and covert intelligence available at the time. Saddam was actively TRYING to convince everyone that he DID have WMD programs. He admitted as much before they hanged him. His records confirm this. The fact that his sham-WMD programs (and his actual WMD stockpiles of Sarin) turned out to be a sham is not the result of a "lie" by the President. Those who made the decisions had access to the same raw intel data indicating Saddam's refusal to cooperate with UN inspections and his "shell game" of moving truck convoys of presumed WMD components and manufacturing equipment out of facilities as UN inspectors were enroute to the facilities for inspection was adequate evidence upon which to base the decision to restart hostilities. The fact that this "shell game," which was observed by satellites, may or may not have been actually moving nuclear materials or other WMD's is irrelevant. We have every right to make military decisions on the available intelligence information, and that was substantial and indicated that Saddam was continuing WMD research and development in direct violation of the UN mandates and the cease-fire agreement.

If you claim "Bush lied," then produce a single statement and the proof that he knowingly falsified the evidence.

He said there was good evidence of WMDs and terrorist support in Afghanistan knowing full well such a statement relied on scant evidence if any.

"Scant" is a subjective term. You may think it "scant," but you're not paid the big bucks to make the decisions. Bush was. There's a fuck-load of information out there that you still aren't privy to because it's still classified, or that you are choosing to ignore, like the statements of Saddam's Air Marshall who supervised the transport of WMDs out of Iraq just before the second invasion. Those WMDs were what was used on the Kurds in 1988:

Bush never lied, OMFG the worlds first honest politician, fuck me lets have a parade! All politicians lie, just how naive are you? It just so happens Bush was caught several times by the media doing so.

And yet you have yet to produce any evidence of this assertion. Sure, politicians lie. I imagine Bush lied. But was he lying about the justifications for going to war in Iraq? Nope.

he wanted to settle some unfinished business his father had started, as a bonus there were vast oil fields there, the Iraqi people were of secondary concern.

So how come we didn't seize the Iraqi oil fields, hm? If oil imperialism was our motivation, please explain why Iraq is running its own oil fields and is selling their oil on the free market? Explain to us why US troops are not occupying the oil fields and delivery infrastructure and why every drop of Iraqi oil is not coming to the US without a dime being paid to Iraq?

Any answers to that, Einstein? You've been drinking the leftist Kool-Aid, my friend.

I'm not a leftist so no I haven't.

You don't have to be a leftist to drink their Kool-Aid, my friend.

There are right wing people who believe Bushes motivations were anything but the stated ones,

And yet no evidence is forthcoming of this purported "motivation." Significant omission. What your argument amounts to is biased speculation, not fact. It's your opinion and you're entitled to it, but you're not entitled to your own facts.

so don't panzy around with this leftist accusation with me, it might fly with other idiots to use blanket terms, but the facts still remain and they have nothing to do with politics. Facts are just facts whatever colour you want to paint them.

When you state a fact, I'll be glad to examine it. So far you've stated opinion and nothing else. Care to address the use of Sarin on the Kurds, and explain away the transport of more than 40 plane-loads of Sarin-filled weapons of mass destruction to Syria?

Bushes main goal was to remove Saddam he says this clearly to press after the fact.

So what? Saddam needed to be removed. He violated UN mandates 14 times in 12 years, concealed WMDs, transported them to Syria, played a shell-game with UN inspectors, interfered with their inspections, and, according to his own statements and documents, tried really fucking hard to convince everyone that he WAS creating nuclear and biological weapons of mass destruction. I don't fault Bush, or Blair, or anybody else in the Coalition for believing what Saddam tried so hard to convince the world was the truth. That he was lying is utterly irrelevant.

He also admits that his motivations were far from clear to the press and he's said himself he's not always been 100% honest with them.

Quotes please.

I never said his driving goal was to win oil fields.

Bullshit. You said, and I quote, "...as a bonus there were vast oil fields there." This clearly implies that Bush's motivations for going to war was in some way related to US domination of Iraq's oil fields, which is, yet again, complete horseshit.

Amongst his many driving goals was to win them for a democratic Iraq and hence open them up to the West as resource sources, hence the first and greatest priority was to overthrow Saddam.

Removing a brutal, genocidal dictator who was a threat to the world and working to ensure that the people of Iraq can build a democracy of their own was the goal, and an admirable one at that. Does this mean that the hope is that Iraq will be friendly to the US? Of course. So what? Big deal. That's called "international geopolitics" and we need make no apology whatsoever for trying to build relationships with countries that contain essential strategic resources.

There was an agreement, that the US would consult the UN before it invaded unless its troops were in danger, you broke it. Deal with it. Everyone thinks it was illegal except US it would be funny if it wasn't tragic.

Fuck the UN. And fuck anybody who thinks we need the UN's permission to protect our nation or our strategic international interests.

I mean do you actually believe your own bs? When you hear it like half a dozen times doesn't repeating the same shit no one except the US believes get tiresome? You're only lying to yourself anyway. I mean I gave up trying to reason with people ages ago. No matter what documents you point out, who signed what, what agreements were made. People just chose to believe what the hell they like anyway. It's tiresome.

Unlike you, I've actually done some research on the matter, so my conclusions are founded in fact, not anti-American propaganda. But, if you don't like the discussion, feel free to fuck off elsewhere.

Why don't you fuck off somewhere else and take your delusional bilge with you then? Since its clearly horse shit propaganda that you have manured over your opinion.

Because I'm not the one who has a problem with the debate, you are.

Paragraph 12 clearly states that the UN SC must be consulted if there is to be a decision to invade. The US agrees unless it is attacked to abide by that. Then it breaks its word.

Fuck the UN Security Council. The United States is a sovereign nation not beholden to anyone, particularly not a bunch of ineffectual boobs in blue helmets. We do what we think is right, and the rest of y'all can go fuck yourselves if you don't like it. That's why we maintain the finest, most effective fighting force on the face of the earth, so that we can tell pussies like you and the UN to go fuck themselves.

You don't like it, bring it on...at your own peril.

You signed a treaty hell the UN wouldn't exist without you, you can't go crying when it calls your actions against the very charter your President helped to write.

So you are happy liars then. Well at least we've established that much. Not that people weren't well aware but the US is no longer somewhere anyone should look up to. How can international law apply to a nation of alien intruders to the planet? We aren't part of the world anyway! You're not a sovereign nation that would be putting it mildly mostly your governments think you are from another planet. You're the maverick bad boy of the Western world. For most of the late 20th century an out of control warmonger. Your government have systematically ruined your reputation for decades. Maybe the only thing you don't like about Obama is that he's decided you fucked up and doesn't want to be the same dick Bush was? Maybe you like fucking up, maybe you think no this time it wont be another cash funnel with no net gain! Yes lets fuck it up again and make everyone pissed off at us! Can't hurt can it?!

Oh and by the way type Bush lied into You tube and you'll be inundated with him doing just that to the press. You're one of those people born every minute aren't you. Gullible mark willing to believe any bs your fed as long as it fits your twee little imaginary shining beacon of perfection model. Good luck with that.

I don't have a problem I just think you're full of shit. If that's a problem I can live with the truth. You have to live with a wagon full of cognitive dissonance and a nation that has basically wasted its golden age in petty squabbles that achieve virtually nothing. Now its time to sit back and watch you get shat on by China. Can't say I'm all that bothered, you kinda bought it on yourself. The fading start that never really burned as brightly as it could of or indeed should of.

I wish you'd stop peddling this conspiracy theory drivel, it honestly makes you sound like you have some marbles rolling around loose up there and does nothing to strengthen your case. Mind you isolated, embittered, dreaming of former glory days. Bet there's one of those people born every minute in the US too.

Only had one point, you broke a legally binding treaty after declaring you would abide by it. If you don't like that then stop lying to peoples faces? You did the same with the UNCoT you don't like treaties because you think you are immune to political derision. Your governments have often been loose cannons. Hell Bush was more than that he was a complete moron. You are the classic example of a nation out of its time, that thinks behaving like a colonialist asshole is so 21st century. It's sad to see it but the world moved on. Hopefully your presidents will get the message that its time to move on. If not then I predict more pointless warmongering and throwing money away on stalemates and inconclusive shit that blows up in your face.

You can keep saying he was producing WMDs all you want but if it was ten years ago and he never restarted the program, and they were chemical weapons anyway, who the fuck gives a damn. Read your own CIA reports, read the UN inspectors reports. Or are they all lies to. And then you can find out what they really found. And what they found was nothing, it's now established fact that there was nothing. It's pretty common knowledge that Bush new there was nothing too. Live with it, history I'm afraid will read differently to the sadly delusional neocon US version of it.

[Seth]

You signed a treaty hell the UN wouldn't exist without you, you can't go crying when it calls your actions against the very charter your President helped to write.

I didn't sign a fucking treaty, and the one that did wasn't my President, because I wasn't even born yet. And the UN has turned out to be as useless as the League of Nations in the long run, and it's high time the US repudiated it's membership and kicked the organization out of New York.

You're not a sovereign nation that would be putting it mildly mostly your governments think you are from another planet.

Don't care what they think. Don't care what you think. We're exceptional and we've got the nukes, and the stealth bombers, and the JDAMs and every other little bit of military hardware we have that makes what you think about the US utterly irrelevant.

[MrJonno]

Don't care what they think. Don't care what you think. We're exceptional and we've got the nukes, and the stealth bombers, and the JDAMs and every other little bit of military hardware we have that makes what you think about the US utterly irrelevant.

Seig Heil!

[Aos Si]

You signed a treaty hell the UN wouldn't exist without you, you can't go crying when it calls your actions against the very charter your President helped to write.

I didn't sign a fucking treaty, and the one that did wasn't my President, because I wasn't even born yet. And the UN has turned out to be as useless as the League of Nations in the long run, and it's high time the US repudiated it's membership and kicked the organization out of New York.

You're not a sovereign nation that would be putting it mildly mostly your governments think you are from another planet.

Don't care what they think. Don't care what you think. We're exceptional and we've got the nukes, and the stealth bombers, and the JDAMs and every other little bit of military hardware we have that makes what you think about the US utterly irrelevant.

You sound like a 5 year old, really, waving his toy gun around. Work on that. I don't care I got nukes. Yeah we all got them so fucking what. Do you think anyone gives a shit about how big your army is? We only care what you do with it and who has to die because of it while your politicians lie their fucking asses off and act like cunts. You're not exceptional, you're not even special, what you are is just a human being, you shit, eat and piss like everyone else. It's actions that mark a man not the nation he was born in. Acting like a cunt would, were you to chose to do so, make you a cunt. Being president and acting like a cunt, would make you a very dangerous and powerful cunt. But your still a miserable speck of humanity like everyone else, and a cunt of course.

You don't do treaties yeah we get it, your word means nothing. Splendid another mark of distinction on your history. The Charter of the UN, Resolution 1441, UN convention on torture what can we sign up to and then break our promise on! You're a Western nation, grow the hell up and start acting like one. The standards are high yes, and most of us never live up to them. But there's no harm in fucking trying.

You're right about one thing though what I think doesn't matter, what the other 194 nations think does though. Yeah and there are 195 countries not 194 so put that in your pipe and smoke it!

[Aos Si]

Don't care what they think. Don't care what you think. We're exceptional and we've got the nukes, and the stealth bombers, and the JDAMs and every other little bit of military hardware we have that makes what you think about the US utterly irrelevant.

Seig Heil!

Actually he would of hated Hitler as Hitler was anti democracy and anti capitalism, about the only ideologies they share was their pathological hatred of communism and the nationalist flag waving shit. I know what you mean though, he does seem pretty right wing. Not that I particularly worry about politically isolated ideologies like this, they will never have a voice any more than Communism will, libertarianism is a lame duck in political reality, from the leftist anarchists to the capitalist right. Atlas wont shrug. If it does then humanity will end up where it was before, assuming it survives its own stupidity a second time.

[MrJonno]

Hitler hated democracy (like libertarians), used capitalism for their own benefit (like libertarians), used the system they hated for their own advantage (ie like libertarians sucking of the state for farming subsidies), loved the cult of the individual (as long as you are the strong individual) everyone else counted as 'non-productive'.

Libertarianism doesnt just have wrong policies its evil to its very core

[Coito ergo sum]

Godwin's Law is invoked.

[Coito ergo sum]

Maybe we ought to be in Syria too ---

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/ap ... ot-protest

Soldiers shot for refusing to fire on civilians. Clearly, there is a humanitarian crisis in Syria that is at least as bad as that in Libya.

So, why not Syria?

[Ian]

Maybe we ought to be in Syria too ---

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/ap ... ot-protest

Soldiers shot for refusing to fire on civilians. Clearly, there is a humanitarian crisis in Syria that is at least as bad as that in Libya.

So, why not Syria?

Because there's no such thing as textbook foreign policy applicable to somewhat similar scenarios in different countries. "Scenario X is happening somewhere, therfore the international solution is Y." In other words, as we've all heard ad nauseum in recent weeks, just because we can't get involved everywhere doesn't mean we shouldn't get involved anywhere. Moreover, "involvement" doesn't just mean a military campaign of some sort. There are other avenues of influence, but they don't (or can't) get much media attention...

Compared to Libya (or Myanmar, or Yemen, or Ivory Coast, or Bahrain, or Iran, etc cetera, et cetera) Syria is a different country and a different scenario confronting its region and the world. The opposition to the regime in Damascus doesn't seem to be as widespread, or at least as concentrated in certain areas. In Libya, there are some actual front lines of combat. Nothing of the sort has yet gelled in Syria. Related to this: unlike in Libya, the opposition to the current government in Syria isn't begging the world for military intervention. And the current government has or at least had something of a reformist nature (compared to the last one); too slow for its people perhaps, but Assad as a dictator is not quite of the loony tunes variety represented by Qaddafi.

If there hadn't been any internation resolve on Libya, we on this forum would've spent the last couple weeks arguing with each other over the news of slaughter coming from the Battle of Benghazi and the merits of non-intervention, and how much international credibility the UN and NATO etc. have lost by just standing by and watching. Instead, the discussions here have been about Operation Odyssey Dawn and the merits of humanitarian intervention, and how much international credibility the UN and NATO etc. have lost or stand to lose by getting involved.

It was a miserable choice to make, an almost perfect case of damned-if-you-do-and-damned-if-you-don't.

[Ian]

Some more thoughts on the "why here but not there" debate...

I'm more of a Joseph Nye jr. thinker, but paraphrasing his conservative counterpart Samuel Huntington might be worth a post:

Hypocrisy, double standards, and "but nots" are the price of universalist pretensions. Democracy is promoted, but not if it brings Islamic fundamentalists to power; nonproliferation is preached for Iran, but not for Israel; free trade is the elixir of economic growth, but not for agriculture; human rights are an issue with China, but not with Saudi Arabia; aggression against oil-owning Kuwaitis is massively repulsed, but not against non-oil-owning Bosnians. Double standards in practice are the unavoidable price of universal standards of principle.

And why are nations like the US, or international bodies such as the UN, obliged to establish and maintain such universal standards of principle? Because the international pressure of responsibilities and/or capabilities dictate such things. Few care if Estonia's policies towards China are ideologically inconsistent with its policies towards India or Saudi Arabia. In fact, few really expect Estonia to have any universal ideologies other than whatever seems to be in its own best interests on a case-by-case basis. But more than any other nation, the US is expected to behave differently, to be more predictable, and to have less flexible policies when confronted with one situation in one place and then a similar situation someplace else. American policymakers are thus obligated to talk about "pragmatic idealism", and Obama forced to choose between either a) the hypocrisy of intervening one place but not another, or b) the hypocrisy of speaking about ideals but not doing anything to promote them. Meanwhile, scolds everywhere look at whichever decisions were made and deride those upon whom decisions are forced as hypocrites.

Kinda sucks to be a superpower.

[MrJonno]

Exceptionalism (ubermensch) is just fascism by another name not something I brought up first