You're ignoring the entire record of human history... No gov. means a void that people will try to fill. How many warlords are there in Somalia?

From chaos and disorder, the wielder of the biggest club will eventually float to the top. Whether that club is literal (feudal/tribal) or a democratic faction, or a totalitarian regime/police state is immaterial.

But hey, the internet is the panacea for the furious crowd. Now people can soapbox day and night as they order in pizza and consume litres of sugar filled beverages before ordering something else pointless on the internet. Slacktivism at it's finest.

Apathy is the new outrage and it's all the rage.

The Syrian moderates have given up on getting any help from the outside world, they are faced with fighting Assad's army and his use of Chemical Weapons alone, or with the assistance of Al Qaida fighters. As America and the rest of the world are all choosing to just continue to do nothing it is just reinforcing the desperation of the Syrian opposition in it's search for allies that will do anything to help them.

The only real meaningful assistance the outside world can give Assad's opposition is the implementation of a no-fly zone. That would be an act of war though, so the majority of the world has been railing in opposition to it, doubly so if America might be involved because it's fun to hate the empire. The Russians and Iranians don't want it because Assad is their man and they will oppose anything that evens the playing field. Even America's war hawk Kissinger crowd are against a no fly zone because because as bobknight33 observed seeing anti-american forces fight and kill anti-american forces is hardly something they want to slow down.

No the only people who want to a no-fly zone implemented over Syria are the Syrian opposition themselves and the very, very few of us who care about them and believe it would be to their benefit. It'll unfortunately take a landslide shift in public opinion to get enough of push for any nation to actually step up and provide meaningful help. I'm afraid the reality is we get to watch either a slide into Somalia like anarchy, or a continued escalation of ruthless repression from Assad that his chemical weapon attack was a precursor to.

Off the start, there's a good chance I'm older than you .

My real problem isn't the moral relativism angle. It is the mindset of holding America to a higher standard not only when placing expectations on it, but when analyzing a situation and the expected results. The situation with the recent chemical weapons attack isn't at all special. War crimes are almost always committed within the fog of war. The trouble I have is people that are completely willing to accepted circumstantial evidence or even simply motive for accusations against America or an ally, but if it's the other side suddenly the burden of proof becomes much, much higher. List a heading that American forces were involved in a massacre of dozens in Iraq or Afghanistan and people just say yep, must be true. List the same heading that Assad has done the same and the response is show us the proof! That attitude and mindset is what I mean to oppose.

You asked who is 'more' evil, or which actions are more evil. Arming and training Syrian rebels, or Assad waging his campaign against them. Assad rules Syria because his father ruled Syria. His father held onto his control by massacring an entire town when the brotherhood spoke up. In the current conflict, the uprising started up as peaceful protests. Assad broke that peace by shooting the protesters when it became clear they weren't stopping.

When it comes to concern for international law, I don't understand if you've been paying attention to it for the last couple decades. When push comes to shove, NOBODY cares about international laws. Well, at least nobody making decisions on the international playing field. International laws did a great job protecting people in Darfur. International laws did a great job protecting Rwandans. International laws did a great job in Chechnya, Serbia, Somalia and on and on and on. Russia, China and Iran will respond to the situation in Syria based on the perceived benefit to them, just the same as America, Israel and everyone else, and not a one of them will waste a thought for international law at the end of the day. The only thing they will consider is what impact they expect their actions to have and they will choose the one they perceive to have the greatest benefit to them. Syria is long on it's way into a quagmire, and not a place of great value to Russia or China for long if the status quo continues. That is why you see their rhetoric softening, because they just have less to gain by maintaining their relationship with a regime that holds less and less control over it's resources.

What I would like to see if I got to play quarterback is the imposition of a no fly zone over regions of Syria, much like in Libya and northern Iraq after the first Gulf war. That alone could force enough of a line where neither Assad nor the rebels could hope to make serious in grounds upon each other. You might even persuade people to talk then but the 'cease fire', even then, would make the Israel/Palestine borders look pristine. I don't see Obama or Putin being dumb enough to each put their own boots on the ground to start anything over Syria. Neither one of them has reason to care enough. Putin, through Iran has strategic access to all of Iran and most of Iraq as it is, and solidifying relationships through Iraq is more than enough to keep Iran occupied.

i guess in the end I do not choose the non-intervention route because if you allow dictators to use chemical weapons to hold onto power, what exactly IS worth intervening for? During the Darfur genocide all the same arguments kept everyone out because you don't want to worsen a civil war. In Rwanda, same story. In Iraq it took 3 campaigns of murdering 100s of thousands before anyone finally took sides against Saddam, and even then his removal is held up as on of the worst violations of international laws and norms ever. It'd be nice for a change to at least find someone that figures starting the Iran-Iraq war and the Al-Anfal campaign against the Kurds where even worse. Far more people died, and the sole end game of them was to enhance the prestige and power of a mad man.

I try my best to avoid any personal attacks in my responses. I am pretty vicious in attacking certain ideas though. I know that comes across as combative, but if you can bear reading what I said again, the only point I tried to hold viciously to was that being MORE angry at America for supporting Saddam than at Saddam himself is flat out wrong. Holding a higher bar of expectations for America is great and helps America out, but the place for that is in judging what one expects America to be. Holding America to a different bar than Saddam or Assad though is a tremendous disservice to Syrian and Iraqi people.

What I'm trying to get across in the examples I listed and my defense of that position is that hordes of people point at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo and call for war crimes trials against Bush and Cheney. I agree with them, America should expect better of it's leaders. The trouble I have is when those same people then step forward and point at those same abuses and declare America no better than Saddam. That kind of ignorance is horrific, and when it's wrapped in the false flag of caring about Iraqi civilians I get mad.

The same applies to Raytheon, Assad and Syria. I share people's anger that people may be about to profit from death. I even share the belief that America is only considering involvement because it selfishly stands to gain. I even share the belief that American corporations like Raytheon are pushing only for what makes them money. I share the outrage at that. My trouble and what I am fighting to point out is why there is so much less outrage and indignation when Assad profits so much more, so much more directly, and by killing far more people? When within the very same conflict the voices damning America for considering a military attack are whispers when talking about Assad's own crimes it angers me. I don't feel it beneficial to point out that hypocrisy subtly.

If we want an example of what non-intervention is like, look no further than Africa. The DRC, Liberia, Somalia, Rwanda and on and on. I simply want to argue that people look at the entire picture instead of naively expecting America to act benevolently. That naivety wears on me even faster when it comes from those that knowingly submit evidence that America is no more benevolent than any other nation.

And to at long last answer your question, I believe targeted strikes against Assad will discourage his behavior in the only way that matters to him, by weakening him more than his attack strengthened him. It's why I point out Assad as no different than any other leader at his level. Their actions can predicted to be entirely based upon selfish gain and nothing else. If killing a million people with chemical weapons would end the war and give Assad back control,of his country he'd do it without a second thought. I am confident the only things that stay his hand is doubts that it would accomplish what he wants. On one side it would mean returning to running his country as his father had, and he may still hold out hope of avoiding that. More likely, he fears he doesn't have the support internally he needs to make such a push without someone else within his circle using the opportunity to usurp him. Circumventing those concerns is within Assad's power though, and all he needs is time. The other part staying his hand is the important one, that America or more likely Israel, is willing to launch counter attacks against his forces if he commits massacres on a great enough scale. I argue in favor of targeted strikes because they will weaken Assad and because that is the ONLY warning that will matter to him. Words become empty if this attack was ignored. Assad will escalate if he sees the chance, and then ignoring even larger attacks or delivering even harsher counter attacks become the choices.

I gotta say the 'anti-interventionist' mentality just pisses me off when gets so extreme as to lament the middle eastern curse of oil and that if only it wasn't there the middle east could be more like Africa where nobody considers intervention. I'm not sure how many middle eastern people are longing to trade places with Somalia, Rwanda, Sudan, Liberia, the DRC and on, and on. Africa's a great place, when the local dictator or militia decides to hold a genocide, nobody else in the world cares enough to do a bloody thing, it's like a paradise.

I broadly agree with what he's saying but he's wrong about Africa. Africa is different because the west's supply chains and the gimping of local resistance to this is already very strong and much more well established (also Somalia was in Africa last time I checked Wes).

The global supply of Gold, Diamonds, Cocoa and Coltan (used to make micro electronics) amongst others are all heavily based in African countries.
Were their supply to be jeopardised (especially Coltan) by local politics you can be assured that the relevant African country would swiftly become a scorching political hot potato.
Unfortunately such a good job as been done over the last 100 or so years of suppressing African development that such problems (with a little encouragement) tend to take care of themselves before they become a big deal. Then western interests can just back whichever co-operative warlord/corrupt regime comes out on top, quietly and without fuss.

The spice must flow!

Simply put, Africa has been beaten around by the west for that bit longer and harder than the middle east. The exploitation of Africa goes back 100's of years and around 100 years ago when western powers began to cede their direct control they made sure to fuck up the local cultural politics so badly that most countries have still yet to recover from the fallout.

The middle east only became a candy store about 60-100 years ago with the oil boom. Before that western attempts to control the middle east were largely religious in nature (though no less brutal I suppose).

I assume the "powers that shouldn't be" are well aware of this and as such the plan to which Mr. Clarke is referring represents a scheme to try and break the back of the middle east financially, politically and culturally while they still can.

That said old ideologies die hard and I suspect the old western religious motivation is still not to be downplayed. The Christian ideologues and Jewish Zionists may not use words like "Kafir" but in some way their beliefs demand that they think of outsiders in the same way.

If the God of Abraham does really exist I'm sure he finds this whole arrangement greatly amusing (I imagine nothing pleases an ego maniac more than watching sycophants fighting and killing each other for your affection).

God must die. God must remain dead. And we must kill him.

"Democratic utopia" aside, you really think 237 years of US history is making things... better? I'd love to hear you elaborate, because it sounds more and more like we're going the way of fascism.

And no small "l" libertarian believes in corporatism. That's right, here's a fun fact for you: corporations are created by government. Given special limited liability the rest of us are not. Given special government subsidies and welfare and even, at times, given eminent domain privileges.

And I love your "go to" disgusting statist answers of "don't like it then get out of my country" and "you must be a birther." Next you'll call me a racist or tell me to move to Somalia. Waiting for that one.

But the truth is you never addressed my real question here, but I'm guessing that was your point. Distraction and obfuscation tends to be the only weapon in the statist's arsenal. Your move, genius.

Just pointing out that I think it's dishonest to be a statist and deride others for being statists, statist.

Thanks for telling me that you fill out a W9, live in LA, and that you're an author; and letting me know that that information is none of my business. How contradictory of you. Statist liberloon.

Although it's fun pointing out you calling the kettle black, it's not necessarily personal grudge. I believe that libertarianism and white-washing of regulations is a bad thing. Look at Pakistan. It's no Somalia in terms of a libertarian paradise, but it's not far off:
http://tribune.com.pk/story/538217/poor-regulation/

^Pakistan is a country riddled with a lack of regulation, yet the poor keep getting poorer there, and the rich keep getting richer.

People who are destitute enough, do have alternatives that are not afforded to them here in the States though, they can sell their organs:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/feb/10/pakistan.declanwalsh

OH TO BE FREE! to sell your organs...

If you do end up getting sick, you can always turn to the largely unregulated drug industry: http://www.aljazeera.com/video/asia/2012/01/201212775512528261.html

FREEDOM! to produce dangerous drugs on a mass scale... Hey! That's kindof like those kids who died from the polio vaccination that was privately funded and not regulated: http://www.sfgate.com/health/article/When-polio-vaccine-backfired-Tainted-batches-2677525.php

It's kind of like...ohhh I wasn't gonna post this again, but what the heck:

@lantern53 Where were Bush's apologies? Didn't he say that history would be the judge hence no need to apologise? Also, the government is not some mythical separate entity from 'the people". America is the bastion of democracy, don't you agree? How are we to separate the actions of its people from its government? Democracy, especially one as purportedly strong as your own, implies consent if not endorsement.

@bcglorf The first point just restates what I said which I think we both agree on.

The second point about Pakistan has been over simplified to the point of misdirection. There are 3 domains of power in Pakistan; the ISI (Intelligence), the military and the government. The ISI largely controls the madrassahs and although there is a huge amount of violence in Pakistan at the moment (something you won't hear about in Western news broadcasts) the main area of contention there is about Kashmir. It has little if nothing to do with the USA. In fact the USA aids the Pakistan cause by their alliance with Pakistan in an attempt to oppose Chinese backed India. Further, charities does not automatically mean state-based endorsement. Its quite a stretch.

Plus, I can name many muslim nations that did not have spontaneous celebrations. Afghanistan for one. Sure maybe a few in Kabul got wind of it but as a nation they are still pretty much in the dark about the whole thing. Some more, Turkey (secular yes but muslim by demos), Azer Baijan, Sudan, Bosnia-Herzogoznia, Burkina Faso, Chad, Comoros, Gambia, Kosovo, Kyrgyzstan, Mauritania, Somalia.... I'm sure there were lots of other countries that had spontaneous displays of celebration after 9/11... France, Cuba, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Venuzuela, Russia, Guatemala, Vietnam, Philippines, Laos, Cambodia, China, India, Japan, Mexico, Serbia.

To paint any display of celebration with the brush of enemy eliminates any nuance or desire for understanding complex issues for the sake of post hoc raltionalisation of ones own immediate intuitions. Does the Westboro Baptist Church mean that America is no better than any of the Muslim nations you list? Of course not. To say as much as absurd. To see brown people doing the same is merely convenient.

The third point you seem to provide your own refutation. Drones etc do indeed fuel Al Queda. You admit as much. If the AL Qaeda aim is indeed about Pakistan and India (which I think you may be very confused about Al-Qaeda and its Pakistani brethren, two very separate entities with almost no commonality bar what we grant them). Al Qaeda in the Bin Laden days cared nothing for Pakistan. It was almost entirely focused on Saudi Arabia and only went to Afghanistan as a sort of Boys Own adventure club. They were the laughing stock of the Mujahaddin.

Between wars of aggression (Iraq, Afghanistan) and the violation of national sovereignty (Pakistan, Libya, Syria, Jemen, Somalia), the running of gulags (Gitmo, Baghram) and torture facilities (airport in Mogadishu), the NDAA and the war on whistleblowers on the one hand and the entire corporate corruption (too big to fail/jail in particular) on the other hand, there's plenty of reason to take a good look at what the latest administrations have been responsible for.

But hey, Benghazi and the IRS are the real scandals, right?

Not Thomas Drake, John Kiriakou and Bradley Manning or Anwar al-Awlaki, Abdulrahman al-Awlaki and Samir Khan. Certainly not HSBC or Gitmo. And neither nightly JSOC raids nor cruise missile attacks, much less torture and kidnapping.

Please tell me this was somewhere like Haiti or Somalia, not the U.S.

>> ^kymbos:

So, avoid disappointment, aim low? Does America compare itself with those countries? I thought it was a developed nation. You do provide me with entertainment, I'll give you that.>> ^A10anis:
>> ^kymbos:
Ah, no: "The United States has the highest rate of gun related injuries (not deaths per capita) among developed countries, though they also have the highest rate of gun ownership and highest rate of officers."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence>> ^A10anis:
>> ^kymbos:
Americans have a habit of shooting people in general.

What a stupid, crass, crude, comment. Or did I miss that you pressed the sarcasm button?


Statistics are limited and can be misleading in showing the big picture. Would you feel safer in Colombia, South Africa, Brazil, Somalia or Russia? (rated the most dangerous countries on earth) Check out their figures on crime and, if you still feel they offer a safer environment in which to live, feel free to visit them.


I'm pleased you are so easily entertained, though that was not my intent. It was, actually, to point out that making silly generalizations was pointless. Anyway, like my wife, I'm pretty sure you will need to have the last word, even though you have nothing rational to say. I'm done.

So, avoid disappointment, aim low? Does America compare itself with those countries? I thought it was a developed nation. You do provide me with entertainment, I'll give you that.>> ^A10anis:

>> ^kymbos:
Ah, no: "The United States has the highest rate of gun related injuries (not deaths per capita) among developed countries, though they also have the highest rate of gun ownership and highest rate of officers."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence>> ^A10anis:
>> ^kymbos:
Americans have a habit of shooting people in general.

What a stupid, crass, crude, comment. Or did I miss that you pressed the sarcasm button?


Statistics are limited and can be misleading in showing the big picture. Would you feel safer in Colombia, South Africa, Brazil, Somalia or Russia? (rated the most dangerous countries on earth) Check out their figures on crime and, if you still feel they offer a safer environment in which to live, feel free to visit them.

>> ^kymbos:

Ah, no: "The United States has the highest rate of gun related injuries (not deaths per capita) among developed countries, though they also have the highest rate of gun ownership and highest rate of officers."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence>> ^A10anis:
>> ^kymbos:
Americans have a habit of shooting people in general.

What a stupid, crass, crude, comment. Or did I miss that you pressed the sarcasm button?


Statistics are limited and can be misleading in showing the big picture. Would you feel safer in Colombia, South Africa, Brazil, Somalia or Russia? (rated the most dangerous countries on earth) Check out their figures on crime and, if you still feel they offer a safer environment in which to live, feel free to visit them.

>> ^chingalera:

Yeah people...Focus on the this cad-killer's loquacious verve and not his past douchebaggery! Go easy on the poor cunt, he kicked a nasty coke habit and has a bad ticker....lighten-up on him for Bosnia and Somalia, too

That's indeed the sole reason I posted it.