|
McDowell posted:We didn't assassinate Saddam. He was captured by US forces and then tried and executed by an Iraqi legal process. before he could talk about all the support he received from the US back in the day.
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 18:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 09:26 |
|
|
Stultus Maximus posted:Obama has made some mistakes but I think he's set the correct path to go on. It's not an easy path and there will be a lot of points where it seems like a bad idea, but I think he's on the correct path of internationalism. I know this is from the first page, but I think this poster captures the sentiment of a lot of posters in the thread when pointing out the futility of intervention in Syria. Let me also line up and say that I agree with that sentiment: Syria is a money/blood pit. While other posters have given good reasons why earlier intervention could have worked, I personally don't think that sad sack of sand is worth shedding American blood for (ditto with Iraq by the way). My problem with Obama's foreign policy isn't that he didn't intervene or not, but that he tried to not choose between the two. He wanted to have his cake and eat it too, and that is terrible foreign policy. The nature of a democracy half the world away from most international crises means that we have only a limited national will to engage in costly endeavors. If there is a reason for America to be involved, we'll go in and get the job done, and the country will unify to see it through. For a certain amount of time only, as we saw with the Second Iraq War. Therefore, national will to fight should be jealously shepherded by the Executive Office as much of a resource as food, water, oil, or tanks. GWB failed to understand this, and to me was a defining failure of his foreign policy. Now Obama's failure is the corollary to the above: you do not claim or posture to use military force unless you are actually willing to use it. You bluff too many times, and someone will call you on it, and on the world stage, when people's lives are on the line, your word must mean something. Teddy Roosevelt referred to it as "speak softly and carry a big stick." You want to peacefully engage in diplomacy where ever possible, but when you pull out military force as an option, you do it fully and thoroughly and leave no room for doubt in anyone's mind that America means what it says. That is the crime of Obama's red line, and of his posturing about "Assad must go, eh... nevermind." It means what the US says can be ignored; it means that when we say "NO" to someone, they can try waiting us out. It means now for subsequent leaders in subsequent crises, opposing countries will wonder "do they really mean it?" That means where one tyrant might have backed down from the threat of confrontation with the US prior to Obama, now he might call the threat, and then force must be used and people die. If America rattles its saber, it better drat well be because we're drawing it, ready to cut someone. Essentially, do paraphrase Yoda, do it, or don't do it - don't fumble with half-rear end measures. What compounds Obama's red line failure even more is because it was on the subject of WMDs (chemical weapons). To quote Dr. Strangelove, "deterrence is the art of creating, in the mind of the enemy, the FEAR to attack." What made that movie so darkly funny is the truth of many lines like that in the movie. It is the certainty of consequences and US response that protects us from hostile use of WMDs on us. There are only hazy lines separating chemical and biological weapons from nuclear weapons, and thus US policy on all WMD use must be crystal clear. Nuclear weapons are terrible things and should have never been developed, but sadly Pandora's box has been opened. The only thing keeping it from spewing all its contents on the world is a giant pile of US/Russian bombs on the lid of the box with a note that says "Mutually Assured Destruction." Nuclear deterrence only holds if everyone knows that those holding the button are ready and willing to press it should someone step out of line. That is why for Obama to declare a red line on chemical weapon use and then fail to act in ANY way is so dangerous. "Hey, but it was just some gas attacks" you might say, but then it starts the slippery slope into some fanatic in Iran/KSA/Pakistan/India/NK saying "but it's just one tactical nuclear bomb on a military target." The fact that Obama has now put America's determination and willingness to hold the line on WMDs into question is probably one of the more dangerous mistakes of his presidency (in magnitude of the consequences, although not in probability of it occurring). There are some things in foreign policy where you must be clear, unequivocal, and firm - WMDs are one. Do not say something if you do not mean it, because there are many more things than just the issue at hand at stake.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 18:00
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:There were a lot more moderates back in 2011/2012/2013 before Assad killed them all. But the problem with the bolded, like I said in my reply to Helsing yesterday, is that we're talking about Obama's presidency here. Yes, neocons have been loving up the middle east since at least the early 80s, this is true. But Obama had a chance to do something productive and he chose not to take it. It's baffling to me to see people doubling down on what was in hindsight obviously the wrong choice. You say "Obama made the wrong choice" and the response is "but but so did everyone else!" That's not an defense of Obama or his policies, it's attempt to deflect blame. I'm saying that there was no right choice. That it was far, far too late to fix the situation. We've already forced the car over a cliff, there's no decision we can make that'll stop it from hitting the ground one way or another. Maybe curling up into the fetal position or trying to shift the car's weight so it lands in its wheels might somehow increase the chances of a positive outcome a tiny bit, but the situation is so drat irreparably hosed that regardless of what's done, it'll take a miracle for the passengers to walk away under their own power.  ISIS matters because, for political and ideological reasons, the West cannot allow them to win. In terms of sheer human misery, any faction winning, no matter how horrible, would be better than this desperate, bloody, out-of-control civil war. But that's not a complete picture from a political perspective, which is what any discussion of foreign policy is really judging him on. If a US intervention led to an Islamist faction ending up in stable, undisputed control of Syria, that would cause far more political backlash against Obama than just standing around doing nothing while tons of civilians died. Remember, Iraq isn't considered a failure because a lot of civilians died - it's considered a failure because we failed to really establish a strong and stable, secular, loyal pro-Western government there despite the considerable time, resources, and personnel we invested into the attempt. A cold judgement, perhaps. But foreign policy is the art of figuring out how best to exact national profit from other people's misery.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 18:01
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:Do you think if the US had drone strike assassinated Saddam and his top generals the Iraqi people would have rallied to the Baathists' defence? Saddam's sucessor would have an easy time tightening his grip / rallying his people against the outsiders laying siege and killing leaders. He would also receive support from US adversaries like Russia and China who don't want America asserting the power to kill heads of state.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 18:06
|
|
|
The 'moral imperative' to depose Assad would ring a little more true if the American politicians calling for his overthrow hadn't supported numerous dictators just like him, and continues to support regimes which are just as authoritarian, repressive and morally bankrupt.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 18:07
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:I'm saying that there was no right choice. That it was far, far too late to fix the situation. We've already forced the car over a cliff, there's no decision we can make that'll stop it from hitting the ground one way or another. Maybe curling up into the fetal position or trying to shift the car's weight so it lands in its wheels might somehow increase the chances of a positive outcome a tiny bit, but the situation is so drat irreparably hosed that regardless of what's done, it'll take a miracle for the passengers to walk away under their own power. At this point sure. In 2012 there might have been. The stridency which which people are arguing that nothing could be done is very strange to me, especially in light how how awful things got without American involvement. Not intervening was an enormous mistake and people are desperate to justify that mistake quote:ISIS matters because, for political and ideological reasons, the West cannot allow them to win. In terms of sheer human misery, any faction winning, no matter how horrible, would be better than this desperate, bloody, out-of-control civil war. But that's not a complete picture from a political perspective, which is what any discussion of foreign policy is really judging him on. If a US intervention led to an Islamist faction ending up in stable, undisputed control of Syria, that would cause far more political backlash against Obama than just standing around doing nothing while tons of civilians died. Remember, Iraq isn't considered a failure because a lot of civilians died - it's considered a failure because we failed to really establish a strong and stable, secular, loyal pro-Western government there despite the considerable time, resources, and personnel we invested into the attempt. A cold judgement, perhaps. But foreign policy is the art of figuring out how best to exact national profit from other people's misery. Allowing Assad to win is just as politically and ideologically toxic in a broad, long-term sense as letting ISIS win. It would be better for PR domestically in America and might result in fewer white people getting killed in the short run but in the long run no the Arab secular dictators have been even more toxic ideologically than the Islamists. If the best defense of Obama's actions you can give is that it helped his and the Democrats' political image in the short run then lol.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 18:09
|
|
|
LOL so you're saying that Gaddafi, Saddam and Assad are worse than ISIS?
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 18:13
|
|
|
JFairfax posted:LOL so you're saying that Gaddafi, Saddam and Assad are worse than ISIS? Considering each of them killed ten times as many people as ISIS, and directly play into the Islamist narrative that secular government is evil, yeah. Basic math is hard when you have a pathological need to justify isolationism and reflexive anti-Americanism, I guess? icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 18:21 on Mar 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 18:19
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:If the American president were assassinated, as mentioned in that post, the American people would double down in defense of the current American regime. Killing Saddam did not result in Iraqi people doubling down in defense of the Baathist regime. Can you figure out why that was? That wasn't my point. Although I should point out that Saddam was Ba'athist in name only, and executed the actual Ba'athists long ago. My point was that assassinating a head of state, even if it were supported by the people, is not a foreign policy ideal of worth. Such a leader may indeed be a tyrannical strong man, but assassinating them merely creates a power vacuum which causes other consequences. There are better ways to improve the lives of the citizens and transition them to democracy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 18:20
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:Considering each of them killed ten times as many people as ISIS, yeah. Basic math is hard, I guess? Saddam bought his chemical weapons from the west and had satellite data from the US to help when he gassed the Iranians... What about American sanctions that killed 500,000 Iraqi children? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0WDCYcUJ4o
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 18:21
|
|
|
JFairfax posted:Saddam bought his chemical weapons from the west and had satellite data from the US to help when he gassed the Iranians... What about them? We're talking about Saddam/Assad/Ghaddafi vs ISIS, remember. I'm not the one who brought the comparison up
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 18:22
|
|
|
If we're just going on pure numbers killed America is worse than ISIS by your metrics.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 18:24
|
|
|
JFairfax posted:If we're just going on pure numbers killed America is worse than ISIS by your metrics. Careful now, we already lost one subforum for suggesting assassinating this head of state.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 18:25
|
|
|
Also the point is that American involvement in the middle east over the last 30 years has been a history of supporting awful people for a while and then disposing of them when they have outlived their usefulness. There is no reason to believe that any American action in the region now is for any other reason than self-interest.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 18:26
|
|
|
JFairfax posted:Saddam bought his chemical weapons from the west and had satellite data from the US to help when he gassed the Iranians... What are you actually suggesting for US foreign policy?
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 18:26
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:What are you actually suggesting for US foreign policy? I think that Rumsfeld, Bush and Cheney should be investigated for war crimes as a start. Guantanamo should be closed, drone wars stopped and a plan for the scaling back of overseas US military bases and a plan for reparations to Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, Yemen etc. I think America should apologise to the people of those countries for the suffering it has inflicted and play a much more constructive (as opposed to destructive) role on the world stage. American foreign policy has created the environment which has allowed ISIS to come about and frankly I do not know the best way to stop this because a some of the countries which could stop it have been destroyed by American policy. Also I think Tony Blair is a war criminal as well who should be indicted.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 18:34
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:What are you actually suggesting for US foreign policy? I think every country with a US military presence should hold a referendum. If the majority says 'Yankee go home' - we go. Having demonstrated that our hegemony is democratic we would then have a high ground to pressure Russia on elections in Ukraine and Syria.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 18:36
|
|
|
McDowell posted:I think every country with a US military presence should hold a referendum. If the majority says 'Yankee go home' - we go. Having demonstrated that our hegemony is democratic we would then have a high ground to pressure Russia on elections in Ukraine and Syria. this is a good idea.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 18:37
|
|
|
JFairfax posted:I think that Rumsfeld, Bush and Cheney should be investigated for war crimes as a start. Okay, that's all great for cleaning up our past FP, what do you suggest we do going forwards *is covered in a spray of "gently caress amerikkka" rhetorical vomit*
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 18:41
|
|
|
don't be too down on Kerry and Obama over Syria y'all, that was partly my doing. back in July 2013 I made an offering of wine to Dionysus, Lord of the Thyrsus, God of Wine and Ecstasy, and Conqueror of Asia, asking only that He keep the United States from intervening directly in Syria. A few weeks later Kerry had that moment on international TV where he let slip that the US might not intervene if Assad surrendered his chemical weapons and the Russian spokesperson present accepted the deal. Presumably Kerry was still wasted from whatever he got up to the night before, thanks to the influence of Dionysus. I stand by my decision to involve the old gods in this conflict, and firmly believe that involving the US directly would've only made things worse
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 18:44
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:Okay, that's all great for cleaning up our past FP, what do you suggest we do going forwards As little as possible very carefully. I love America and choose to live in America but American foreign policy has been by and large awful for a very long time. This is not rhetorical vomit, it is acknowledging the crimes and horrors that have been inflicted upon the world and trying not to do this in the future again and again. The defence budget and the money syphoned off by private companies over the last 15 years is a huge crime against the American people. For the cost of these totally unnecessary wars you could all have free college education and free healthcare.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 18:45
|
|
|
JFairfax posted:I think that Rumsfeld, Bush and Cheney should be investigated for war crimes as a start. This is like negaverse American Exceptionalism.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 18:46
|
|
|
America has created the environment that has allowed ISIS to bloom in the same way that the carpet bombing of Cambodia created the environment which allowed the Khemr Rogue to flourish
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 18:47
|
|
|
JFairfax posted:As little as possible very carefully. So you're basically a left-wing isolationist? McDowell posted:I think every country with a US military presence should hold a referendum. If the majority says 'Yankee go home' - we go. Having demonstrated that our hegemony is democratic we would then have a high ground to pressure Russia on elections in Ukraine and Syria. This is already the case. As it turns out with the exception of Cuba US bases tend to be hosted willingly.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 18:59
|
|
|
Juffo-Wup posted:Are drone strikes morally different from conventional airstrikes, in your view? Firstly, drone strikes violate international law, and probably US law too so my own moral opinion is meaningless. But so I'm not just dodging the question there is little moral difference between a drone strike and air strike used to do the same thing but drone strikes are not used to do the same thing. Drone strikes are fulfilling the out of fashion airstrike role of just saturation bombing "soft" targets which is morally repulsive, though drone strikes are used for intermittently but consistently bombing soft targets. Also I think most moral codes see some difference between killing a fighter on a battlefield and killing a fighter and everyone around him when hes at the 7-11. The main reason to be very concerned about drone warfare is they legitimise those old soft target tactics, if the USA can successfully define some guy in Utah shooting a hellfire into a flat in Kabul, killing nearly everyone inside as a "pinpoint targetted killing" or whatever and refuse to release accurate information on it then that will be how the USA and everyone acts going forward. Whats more they can now just go on indefinitely as a blatant terror strategy as we can see in Pakistan. The weirdest thing about Obama is that a constitutional lawyer went HAM on domestic spying and an international assassination campaign.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 19:05
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:So you're basically a left-wing isolationist? I don't remember the UK having a referendum on US military bases... I think that the money and energy America spends on it's military could be better used elsewhere to have a more positive impact on its own people and the rest of the world. I think that genuine peacekeeping would be a good use of military forces but right now I don't think there is any chance of America doing that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 19:07
|
|
|
Tell me more about how Amerikkka is forcing Britain to host military bases against its will.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 19:08
|
|
|
JFairfax posted:I don't remember the UK having a referendum on US military bases... We have a Status of Forces Agreement with every country hosting a US base. With the exception of Gitmo, every country has an opt-out clause. That includes England.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 19:09
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:Tell me more about how Amerikkka is forcing Britain to host military bases against its will. Zeroisanumber posted:We have a Status of Forces Agreement with every country hosting a US base. With the exception of Gitmo, every country has an opt-out clause. That includes England. That's not the same as having held a referendum on the matter.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 19:11
|
|
|
nopantsjack posted:Firstly, drone strikes violate international law, and probably US law too so my own moral opinion is meaningless. We're going to need some evidence for these claims.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 19:11
|
|
|
Stultus Maximus posted:We're going to need some evidence for these claims. Two reports released on the eve of a White House visit by Pakistan's prime minister allege that the U.S. has "violated international law with top-secret targeted-killing operations that claimed dozens of civilian lives in Yemen and Pakistan," as McClatchy Newspapers writes. In one of the reports, Amnesty International says that: "Based on what officials from the [Obama] administration have stated publicly, and what has been reliably reported by news media, current U.S. policy and practices for the intentional use of lethal force against terrorism suspects and other people who happen to be near such suspects appear to go far beyond what international human rights law permits. Indeed, from what has been publicly disclosed, the policy and its implementation seem simply to disregard international protections for the right to life and the prohibition of the arbitrary deprivation of life. In at least some cases, the policy appears to allow for unlawful killings referred to in human rights terms as 'extra-legal, arbitrary and summary executions' or 'extrajudicial executions.' " NPR's Philip Reeves reports from London that Amnesty International examined 45 drone strikes on targets in Pakistan from January 2012 through September of this year. The organization focused particularly on nine incidents, Phil added, including one in which "18 laborers were killed when a missile crashed into their tent and a second missile struck those who came to help." The other report comes from a similar organization, Human Rights Watch. It concludes that U.S. airstrikes "against alleged terrorists in Yemen have killed civilians in violation of international law ... creating a public backlash that undermines US efforts against al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula." The organization says that "during six weeks in Yemen in 2012-2013, Human Rights Watch researchers interviewed more than 90 people about the strikes including witnesses, relatives of those killed, lawyers, human rights defenders, and government officials. Human Rights Watch reviewed evidence including ordnance and videos from attack sites. Security concerns prevented visits to four of the attack areas." http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2013/10/22/239597012/u-s-drone-strikes-violate-international-law-reports-allege JFairfax fucked around with this message at 19:18 on Mar 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 19:14
|
|
|
JFairfax posted:That's not the same as having held a referendum on the matter. Technically every election they hold is a referendum on the matter. Nobody but the fringe actually considers it to be a tenable political position.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 19:15
|
|
|
JFairfax posted:That's not the same as having held a referendum on the matter. Britain's democratically elected government agreed to host the bases. It also chose to invade Iraq BTW
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 19:19
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:Britain's democratically elected government agreed to host the bases. It also chose to invade Iraq BTW I am aware, I think Tony Blair is a war criminal who lied to the British people and should be on trial for this.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 19:20
|
|
|
JFairfax posted:Two reports released on the eve of a White House visit by Pakistan's prime minister allege that the U.S. has "violated international law with top-secret targeted-killing operations that claimed dozens of civilian lives in Yemen and Pakistan," as McClatchy Newspapers writes. Okay. I interpreted his assertion "drone strikes violate international law" to mean that drone strikes are inherently illegal rather than there have been drone strikes which violated international law.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 19:24
|
|
|
Well given that pretty much all drone strikes are 'extra-legal, arbitrary and summary executions' they pretty much are inherently illegal.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 19:26
|
|
|
JFairfax posted:I am aware, I think Tony Blair is a war criminal who lied to the British people and should be on trial for this. I also believe that my political opposition should be arrested and put on trial for the nebulously defined crime of "lying"
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 19:27
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:I also believe that my political opposition should be arrested and put on trial for the nebulously defined crime of "lying" He is not my political opposition, he is someone who took my country into an illegal war and in the process lied to parliament in the presentation of evidence making the case for that war. Britain was in no danger from Iraq, this was a war of choice 'the supreme crime from which all others follow'. I believe in the principles laid down by the trials in Nuremberg post second world war which clearly sets the judicial precedent that offensive wars of choice are illegal.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 19:32
|
|
|
JFairfax posted:Well given that pretty much all drone strikes are 'extra-legal, arbitrary and summary executions' they pretty much are inherently illegal. Human Rights Watch does not agree quote:The laws of war permit attacks only against military objectives, such as enemy fighters or weapons and ammunition. Civilians are immune from attack, except those individuals “directly participating in the hostilities.” While the phrase “directly participating in hostilities” has various interpretations, it is generally accepted to include not only persons currently engaged in fighting, but also individuals actively planning or directing future military operations. For a specific attack on a military objective to be lawful, it must discriminate between combatants and civilians, and the expected loss of civilian life or property cannot be disproportionate to the anticipated military gain of the attack. Therefore, not all attacks that cause civilian deaths violate the laws of war, only those that target civilians, are indiscriminate or cause disproportionate civilian loss. quote:The use of unmanned aircraft or drones for targeted killings does not directly affect the legal analysis of a particular attack. Drones themselves and their weaponry of missiles and laser-guided bombs are not illegal weapons under the laws of war – they can be used lawfully or unlawfully depending on the circumstances. When used appropriately, drones offer certain advantages over manned aircraft or cruise missiles that can help to minimize civilian casualties in combat operations. Drones have enhanced surveillance capabilities that allow them to linger with a view of the target for long periods without risk to human operators. Drone operators are thus in theory better equipped to distinguish valid military targets from civilians who are immune from attack. As with other aerial attacks, drone operations may be hampered by poor intelligence or local actors’ manipulation, especially when operating outside of areas where US ground forces can direct them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 19:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 09:26 |
|
|
Yeah I get that, but what I am saying is that practically speaking, with the way the US uses drones - they may as well be inherently illegal because they're being used illegally all the time pretty much.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 19:39
|
|