Tags for this video have been changed from 'stromae, belgium, rwanda, congolese rumba, electro' to 'stromae, belgium, rwanda, congolese rumba, electro, Papaoutai' - edited by eric3579

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.

@enoch,

If Israel is the only place you've seen evidence from then you are reading the wrong news sources. Al Jazeera's coverage and first whiff of the chemical weapon story originally came from reports by field medics in Syria observing huge numbers of dead in the area with no noticeable violent cause of death. Al Jazeera then reported on the UN inspection team set to go into the area to gather evidence of what happened, noting Assad's steadfast refusal to allow the team access to the area. When the team finally was granted much delayed access to the area they were shot at on the way by snipers within territory controlled by Assad. Now Putin is on television not to deny that chemical weapons were used, not even to deny there is sufficient evidence to conclude that they were used, but instead to make the sole denial that we lack evidence of who used the chemical weapons deployed against the civilians in a rebel stronghold. That is as much or more evidence than we had of the gassing of Iraqi Kurds or the Rwandan genocide while they were in progress. Sure, the world denied both of those as well until they were long over, but I resent that and want that willful contempt for civilian suffering to change.

As for your followup questions, I don't much care WHO goes in and punishes Assad's regime for it's crimes so long as it succeeds in discouraging him from continuing to do so. I'd support Putin sending in a limited strike against Assad's suspected chemical weapons supplies. I want to see ANYBODY step up and say using chemical weapons against civilians is sufficient crime to warrant a military response to ensure that dictators don't have more to gain than lose by doing so.

You seem to have a very perverted way of looking at things. You are so interested in America's past crimes of both action and inaction that you don't seem to actually give any though or consideration to what you'd actually WANT to see done. America supported Saddam while he waged a war with Iran that killed millions and saw extensive use of chemical weapons. America entirely ignored the genocide in Rwanda. You seem to share a contempt for those things with me. I at least assume so by you referencing the general idea behind them as a list of reasons America is no white knight or respectable global police force. If you agree those actions where horrifically wrong though, doesn't it follow that if you could turn back time, you'd be willing to advocate for American action in Rwanda? That you'd advocate for at the least American sanction on Saddam during the Iran-Iraq war, if not outright military action to stop his excessive deployment of chemical weapons?

You can't have it both ways, if you decry American action and inaction in the past, that must amount to a call for taking a different and better course.

i like ron paul.
we dated for a bit because we had so much in common in regards to civil liberties and a non-intervention foreign policy.
i had to dump him due to his free-market corporation obsession.
it had just turned creepy...
he still calls on my birthday though,very sweet.

the american people are against any military action.up to 80% of the population kind of against,but what have we learned over the past 10 yrs?
the american government ignores the population and relies on bobbleheads like blitzer and this other cunt to promote the propaganda.

"so let me just say,that after being briefed the gas attacks took place"
ok..im listening,please continue.
"and that the assad administration is responsible"
the assad situation is responsible?
really? are you sure? because as far as i can tell there is not one shred of evidence.
well,thats not quite true.isreali intelligence says the assad regime is responsible.
and if the isreali intelligence says its assad then it MUST be true right? they wouldnt,,you know..lie.

whoa whoa whoa mr quigley.
am i correct in assuming that your entire argument is basically "trust us"?

you sir,are a whore who would sell his integrity to the highest bidder.you have lost any right to speak on this situation or for any of your constituents to show you any form of respect.
i revoke your right to participate in human affairs and i bid you good day.

i said good day!

and look at our little slut blitzer trying to snipe from the bleachers.
oh blitz...
you sold your soul a looong time ago.
nobody listens to you anymore.
they are just transfixed by the beard.

to imply that military force is a righteous and just course of action due to 100,000 people dying ignores the fact that america has used chemical weapons.

so when THEY use chemical weapons it is a crime against humanity but when WE use them it is justified?
nice logic captain propaganda.

and if we are to take your argument to have any validity.then i am forced to ask this question:
"if the united states has the right to invade another country for crimes against humanity.that the invasion is for humanitarian reasons (as if bombing and killing is humanitarian),then explain to me why so many countries were NEVER invaded by the united states,even when THEIR crimes against humanity were far more egregious?"
see:rwanda
see:east timor
the list is NOT short.

cant answer?
then i submit that your argument is no argument at all.
because if you were a true journalist you would have asked "where is the diplomatic solution?"
"why are we we going in to drop a limited sorte of bombs?"
"in what reality could that produce positive results for the region?"
"where is the international political pressure to bring these factions to the negotiation table?"
"where is the evidence that assad's regime is responsible?"
"why is the obama administration ignoring the military commanders advice of non-intervention?"

i could do this all day.

there is a bright spot in this otherwise dreary and dystopian picture.
the american people are not as politically gullible as they were 10 yrs ago.
we SEE whats going on.
the world SEES whats going on.

welcome citizen to the united states of empire.
please have a seat.
be quiet and obey.
your government is in control.

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.

He also seems to be talking about the whole of Rwanda and the Congo. The whole area is facing an uncertain future after tearing themselves apart with civil war and genocide. These countries need the "old men" to act as father figures to all, but they just aren't there.

The lyrics can easily be linked with Stromae's personnal life: He almost never met his Rwandese father who was eventually killed in the genocide in Rwanda... This back story gives even more depth to this video...

I agree 100% with you on that. I personally take the position that ALL nations that are signatories to the international convention on genocide were obligated to intervene in Rwanda and the universal failure of all of them to do so is as frightening to me as the war crimes nation states commit to advance themselves.

Guaranteed though that if Clinton, or any other national leader, had sent boots into Rwanda during the genocide the crowd of folks like Greenwald and Chomsky would be here today explaining how intervention caused the Rwandan genocide...

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

My response to the Rwanda point is that you can't have it both ways. A mission to Rwanda would never have been purely humanitarian. There would have been "boots on the ground" there. Fire-fights, young American soldiers dying on TV. You're either intervening internationally or you're not.

Rwanda is what happens. Clinton is still riding the great approval ratings for his foreign policy, including his steadfast refusal to meddle in Rwanda throughout the duration of the genocide there.

And yes, the hypocrisy is bad, the horrific evil of America's own sociopaths like Kissinger is even worse. We just need to recognize the difference between turning Cambodia into a parking lot to prove to the Ruskies that we have 'resolve' and removing someone like Saddam from power.

I know I'm gonna get ripped apart, but I didn't care about the Red Wedding. After the initial shock of watching a pregnant woman get stabbed in the stomach, I was over it. This guy has one move, build up some stuff and then destroy it and watch the ripples. It's not a clever way of destroying something, it's informed by his love of Medieval Times. Also this probably doesn't bother anyone else but the special effects and the fact that a person just sits there while being stabbed instead of at least doubling over in pain is ridiculous. You get more defense out of people in Rwanda from machete strikes, and blood doesn't come out of a neck like that, just watch hockey skate accidents!

I loved Seasons 1 and 2, Season 3 was dragging on and on with me only really caring about the Adventures of Ygritte and Jon Snow, and Aryas little stuff. Actually the pairing of Jamie and that huge woman was pretty cool for a bit but I also got tired of what a sad sack he was.

I have two problems with Game of Thrones though that I think people will agree with, so read this if you already hate everything I wrote.

ONE: There's not enough of it. I'm not talking about Khaleesi wandering the desert, I'm talking about character development. These are HUGE books with tons of scenes, I gotta think that somewhere along the line a character or two is developed with some small things rather than BIG 3 minute scenes. I want the series to be 20 episodes long, 2 hours and episode. I know people want action and every episode has to matter but aren't the books written in POV format? Why not have some POV parts in the show with some personal narrative!

TWO: The fucking praise it receives. I get there's a lot of book readers and it's a very good series, but it's not the second coming. This isn't even the best thing on TV right now, and it certainly isn't better than The Wire. Game of Thrones has a bunch of Emmys, The Wire has only two Nominations...they didn't even WIN ANYTHING! Could that be because Game of Thrones has like One black guy...who's obsessed with raping a white woman by the way, interesting there.

Oh and The Wire is Real, that shit really fucking happens everyday still. Yet this week people are crying like pussies because their favorite characters get got. Even though I'm a huge fan, I'm kind of embarrassed after this episode to be associated with a lot of the internet. I mean I thought it was cool when Buffy died the second time, it wasn't the end of the fucking world though. Also Buffy came back to life, so good reference to use right? Right?! Ahhh shut up.

Thomas Robert Malthus

This guy is talked about in Jared Diamond's book Collapse.

Jared suggests that overpopulation in Rwanda coupled with rudimentary substance farming techniques helped to set the stage to for war.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Which countries are we comparing to the US incarceration rate? The ones where the government kills you without a fair (or any) trial? The ones where women are still enslaved? Two million incarcerated out of 300 million...go ahead, boost the number imprisoned to 10 million, that's still one-thirtieth of the population.
>> ^raverman:
America has some of the highest rates of crime and imprisonment of most developed nations per capita.
I bet most Americans don't even know that... or believe that the freedom and democracy makes the US a safer place to live.
but why?
Culture? Too much sense of individualistic entitlement?
Guns? How might criminality be linked psychologically to arming individuals that suggests a constitutional entitlement to personal violence?
System? Does Imprisonment reduce re-offending? are long jail time sentences better than rehabilitation? Are sentences appropriate to crimes committed?
Everyone's focused on reducing crime and not asking if the cycle of punishment may be part of the problem.


All countries. ALL COUNTRIES. We incarcerate more people (officially) per capita than any other country in the world. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_incarceration_rate

When looking at the list, please keep in mind that Rwanda (woo, we only imprison 25% more of our population than they do!) should not be our competition. We should be trying to be better than other sturdy Western countries with stable economies. We out-imprison them by 4-500%.

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^artician:
I'm so curious to why people reject that notion. Is it purely fear of other religions and cultures? Are that many americans actually for invading other countries? I've never encountered that state of mind before, at all. From my experience most people are pretty quick to equate War with Evil.

I have a theory that most Americans know pretty much what we're doing. The fight between the indoctrinated (both the right and the left) is actually a fight about how we should go about doing what we're doing in the world. Indoctrinated Democrats have no problem with bossing other countries around and getting our way, we just have to be nicer about it and do it carefully so that we at least LOOK like we're good. Whereas the indoctrinated Republicans believe we are "Special" and should not only do it but do it with complete disregard for what ANY else thinks or says.
This is just a theory based on what I've seen from what our presidents do. Democratic presidents aren't any better on war crimes than Republican presidents. They just seem to be in the business of trying to tell everyone they're being nice and when they have to do something awful it's all the other countries fault.
I mean look at Bush and Obama...Bush locked up people indefinitely and said they deserved it and he does it because they're they enemy. Obama doesn't bother he just assassinates them. If Bush assassinated more like Obama he'd come out and take full credit and say it was AWESOME that he was doing it...Obama not so much, more hand wringing and deflection.
This is also helped along by the media who play their role well. It's just a theory but I like it.


Wow Yogi, we agree on something .

I think your view is pretty much bang on. The only difference between Dem. and Rep. presidents is the reasons they give for acting purely in their own self interests(which very often coincides with making decisions that are in America's self interests).

Where I disagree with Ron Paul's conclusion is about what the answer to all this should be. I don't for a second believe Ron Paul would be any different than all those before him. Instead of selfish wars he'd maybe follow the course of selfish isolationism. Take the recent example in Libya. America had two selfish options, go in or don't. Not going in would mean keeping the President's hands clean and money in America's pocket, and Ron Paul insists that what he'd have done. It also would have meant leaving thousands of Libyan civilians to Gaddafi's death squads. It would mean a Libya still ruled today by Gaddafi, with a newly subdued and less numerous population.

I don't see a clearly white/black obvious ethical choice in most geopolitical decisions, it's always messy. The Iraqi's that hate America the most(the Sadrists) don't hate them for all the things that America did to them, but for America's failures to act. The hate America for it's failure to push into Baghdad in the first Gulf War. In lieu of that they want revenge on the Sunnis. They want to commit their own eviction of all Sunni's from Iraq, or in it's stead to kill them for what Saddam had done with their aid. Was America wrong to stick around in Iraq after evicting Saddam and trying to stand in the middle, stopping a civil war driven by revenge against the Sunnis?

Ron Paul and Chomsky are generally agreed on minding our own business is the only ethical choice. It's hard to make that argument for Libya. It's impossible to make that argument for Rwanda. There are situations in our world were the ethical choice IS to go to war and stop something even more evil than war inherently is. What Ron Paul and Chomsky understand though is that no matter how grave the evil you oppose, your actions will create people who hate you for interfering. War makes it inevitable that your own forces will commit crimes against innocents, and their families will hate you. Ron and Chomsky conclude that means never get involved, I call that cowardice and insist there are situations that demand paying that price and coming to the aid of our fellow man when faced with terrible evils like genocide. In theory, every signatory nation to the convention on genocide agrees with me on this point too.