It's amazing how there was overwhelming support for an INVASION of Iraq over the mere suspected possession of chemical weapons (and to a lesser extent, their use a decade or so earlier), but now such an overwhelming opposition against more limited missile-launching type strikes in the face of actual chemical weapon use against civilians (I guess some people are still questioning which side used chemical weapons, but I don't think that's the real reason for the lack of support). I'm not taking a side there, it's just interesting how war weary Americans are compared to years past.

That war weariness seems to be the #1 factor in public support. I never even quite totally understood why was the Afghanistan conflict was so much more popular than even the Iraq one. Was it just because we were closer to 9/11? Or was it just because Bin Laden was (probably) physically in Afghanistan in the lead-up to 9/11? Because 9/11 itself wasn't really a Taliban-led operation, and even RIGHT after 9/11, the U.S. was distinguishing the Taliban from 9/11 and Al-Qaeda, making demands that the Taliban to give up Bin Laden and other Al-Qaeda leaders. Was Afghanistan really that relevant anywhere besides the battle of Tora bora?

I don't have a strong opinion on Syria but I'm trying to look at it without the lens of pure war weariness. I think the "red line" deal is real and significant and meaningful - I'm sure Obama would take back the speech if he could, but I'm also not a fan of the idea that dictator can gas thousands of people to death and such a huge majority of people don't even want to think about doing anything because it's not their problem. Just hypothetically, what if it was tens of thousands? Millions? Obviously, that would be a different analysis, and there'd be more support, but it seems like conditions are ripe to push that envelope.

I realize I am far less educated in these matters then you guys who argue in this thread but I just don't understand our involvement when we have our own issues domestically. How many homeless people will die this year because of lack ofshelter or mental health treatment. Do you think anyone in Syria cares about them ?

Well I'm not a fan of erecting an invisible wall around the border of the United States and saying we shouldn't care about anything that happens to anyone outside of it. Not only is that horrible and shortsighted foreign policy, but it is incredibly heartless.

I mean, how far do you take that statement? Should we never involve ourselves in anything that doesn't directly affect us? Are you willing to go back through history and say we shouldn't have ever intervened in outside conflicts that didn't directly affect us? How can we square that idea with the fact that we received help from France during our own revolution?

Now I certainly don't think war is the answer in every conflict overseas. I'd need a better case than we've received so far before I could support military intervention in Syria. I just find "people are dying, but it's not in the US, so who cares" an appalling opinion for a human being to take.

But why should we try and save someone in a distant country when we have our own suffering here ?

I don't think Congress has a "anti-homeless people dying" bill ready to go just in cause we don't strike Syria. One has nothing to do with the other.

And to (try to) answer your other question, I don't know if it's "right" or how things will turn out, but the argument goes that it's our problem because if the slaughter of civilians using chemical weapons is something armies know they can do without the intervention of the international community, then it becomes the new norm in military conflicts. At that point its just a numbers game. 1,500 Syrian civilians probably isn't worth some air attacks, but Obama and company feel that it's only the threat of intervention that prevents chemical weapons from becoming the norm, and from potentially millions being killed. And millions being killed certainly WOULD be our problem, because a less stable middle east means a greater danger to the U.S. Economically too, an horribly unstable middle east isn't good for anyone. And ya, there's definitely a lot of "potentials" and "maybes" built into that, and some of them may be very tenuous. But once people get into power, Democrat or Republican, they seem to believe that a proactive foreign policy is more effective than a reactive one. And Obama definitely wished and hoped that the mere threat was enough - he certainly doesn't WANT to respond militarily, Syria (apparently) just called his bluff, so he had to find a way out to save face.

Edit: But in light of all that, you might just be a strict isolationist, which is fine too, there were people who didn't want the U.S. to involve itself in WWII, because that was Europe's problem. That was a minority view though, of course.

It's not an either/or situation. If we pulled every troop from overseas, cancelled every foreign aid package, and shut ourselves off from the rest of the world, there would still be suffering here.

Do you think that someone's life is less worthwhile because they were born outside of the United States?

My take isn't that 'its not the US, so who cares' - its that both sides in the conflict are far from the 'good guys' and I don't see that intervening on either side is going to help stability in the region or reduce the death toll.

A far better approach would be what (is hopefully) going to happen where the international community work to try and restrain the worst of their excesses and over time stabalize the country.

Complaining about people being killed and 'fixing it' by killing yet more just seems foolish to me ...

Ya, it's kind of funny that unless I missed it, the nature of the "response" hasn't really been discussed much. I think I read something about how the goal wouldn't be regime change. And presumably, the goal wouldn't be killing more civilians either. I think the only real goal is to be some kind of deterrent to future chemical weapons attacks against civilians. And I'm not even sure what that would be under these circumstances. Maybe all this talk has been enough. Assuming the Syrian chemical weapons attacks happened, were they really worth it to them considering the risk that they clearly face now of U.S. intervention? Did it turn the tide of the war or anything?

Edit: Maybe it's enough that this is all enough of a big deal to freak everybody out for a while. I'd find it much more unnerving if a few thousand civilians were killed via chemical weapons and there wasn't even the DISCUSSION of intervention. I think that would be a world where terrible things on a greater scale could be possible. So at the end of the day, I'd guess I'd be happy if everybody got all butt-hurt about this and it was a big deal, but there was ultimately no actual intervention.

Dear Mr. Obama,

Please return your Nobel Peace Prize as soon as possible.

Signed,
Thorbjørn Jagland and the Norwegian Nobel Committee

This might be a bit more meaningful if it really was about the Syrian government killing their own people, but that's not even the issue. Apparently we don't like the way they're killing their own people. If they had just bombed these people we wouldn't even be considering this strike. Let's do a pinpoint strike to get them back to killing the proper way.

Why was Afghanistan more popular than Iraq? That one seems obvious to me: one was our "vengeance" for 9/11 as, yeah, Bin Laden was there versus the other which was, take your pick: a) revenge for daddy's war, b) a defense contractor's wet dream, or c) not at all related to 9/11.

SI

Yeah, so far it's been a lot of sound and fury, signifying nothing. If it remains that way, we get a bunch of chemical weapons defused, and having the international community there help contains the amount of casualties in a likely brutal civil war, I guess it's not really a "job well done" but better than it could have been.

SI

Paul Ryan a firm ‘no’ on military strike against Syria - Yahoo News

Wow, takes a lot of stones to come out with a firm no after the issue has subdued. He would have probably been a huge supporter of Kennedy on the Cuban missle crisis after the Russians changed their plans.

Man, the US has been animals for quite a while (ie, look at the people we've killed and leadership we've overthrown in violent revolt due to Communist sympathies)

I'll take "all of the above" for $1,000,000 Alex.

I hope I'm wrong about this, because the media is rarely accurate these days.

But was Obama's primary intelligence source attributing the chemical attacks to Assad actually a member of an anti-Assad group who lied about her credentials to get her job with intelligence?

If Hollywood was making this stuff up about Bush, we'd all snicker a little, because it fits the Bush as a cowboy persona the media liked.

But this is criminal incompetence, and it comes at a cost. Now Russia is helping Iran get another nuclear facility online, with better anti-aircraft weaponry to boot. We are one step closer to nuclear war, though it's still a long way off.

No. The primary intelligence as reported in newspapers in multiple countries was intercepts of calls between the government in Damascus and military leaders that used the gas. A German newspaper first reported this if I remember correctly. That intelligence apparently leads to some doubt as to whether this was a rogue unit, but it also makes clear that the Syrian army used sarin.

I'm okay with Putin's op-ed. We agree to disagree on some stuff but that's okay. I think his comment about "American exceptionalism" is the one drawing the most indignation. This last paragraph seems out of place.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/12/op....html?hp&_r=1&

I actually think that last paragraph is well stated. Of course his intentions in writing that likely aren't that stellar (he likely believes Russia is 'exceptional' for instance).

He might however in my experience I think most countries are reasonably realistic and accept in some areas they're better than others and in only a very few (if any) might they be truly 'the best'.

England is quite the opposite to America we chastise ourselves continually for not doing well in areas and I think its one of the reasons why for such a small nation we tend to do reasonably well - we're constantly striving to improve rather than considering ourselves the 'best' at things ...

Is it wrong to say that America is unique though? "Exceptional" can mean good or bad. At least as much as I hear expressions of positive American "exceptionalism", I hear criticisms about the U.S. foreign policy, healthcare system, the corporate landscape, and the people (and the criticisms come from Americans as well as everyone else). And just in terms of scale of economy and the military, the U.S. is exceptionally relevant, probably even if it leaders tried not to be.

Edit: Just looking at GDP alone - the U.S. produces 1/5th of the world's GDP and twice as much as the 2nd ranked country. If you're just an alien from another universe looking at that, with no preconceived biases, you're going to recognize the U.S. as "exceptional", not necessarily in a positive way, but in the sense that they're extraordinarily relevant (and you'd hope they're not TOO evil).

I think the Enlgish viewpoint you are describing is a fairly recent one. The 1600-1945 British viewpoint was very close to the current American exceptionalism viewpoint.

The problem with your description is that those you describe as "animals" aren't killing each other. They're just killing people, regular people who have no desire to kill anyone else. One of the very reasons that chemical weapons are outlawed is because they're indiscriminate.

I think a lot of Americans are responding to this as if Obama's suggesting another invasion of another Middle Eastern country, bogging down in someone else's war. Now, I am not following this closely but it seems to me that what is being discussed is instead punitive air strikes on those who have broken international law. I haven't heard anyone discuss getting involved in the war--hell, who would we side with? We don't agree with any of the combatants. But it seems that nothing will happen because the American public is just hearing "war, Middle East".

All this really proves is that we need a drastic remodeling of the UN. This is the very reason they should exist but they can't take action in cases like this, they're so mired in gridlock at the very core.

Meh, Bashar Al-Assad's op-ed is much better.

Oh I agree totally - and I think that arrogance was one of the reasons why the British Empire declined ... and definitely a large contributing factor to our current mentality.

Hmmm, didn't the British Empire decline because the entire empire was based on the illegal colonization of everything they ever came in contact with and finally everybody revolted against that oppression? Didn't realize it was because you were arrogant.

(ignoring human rights, invasions, who should control what by right etc.)

It depends on your perspective - the empire declined mainly because of an increasing evening of resources between the 'colonies' and the core country and a lack of cohesion/bonding between the colonies and their home nation.

Initially technologically the core country had a technological advantage and the colonies were run by people from the core country - over time each colony saw itself more and more as independent and didn't want to remain a part of the empire which it saw little advantage from being part of.

I believe it was partially arrogance on the behalf of the empire which prevented them anticipating the changing climates and technological imbalances shifting - if they had anticipated this then they could probably have increased the bonding between the colonies and the home nation (ie. increase propoganda etc.) and have retained things for longer.

As it was it was 'unthought of' for the Empire to fall - so its largely accepted that they didn't believe it ever world (the sun will never set on the English empire etc.).

While you might say nice things about it being illegal colonisation which caused its collapse thats far from the case per-se, otherwise the United States itself would obviously have collapsed being an 'illegal colony' which while it attained its independence didn't give much in the way rights to the original inhabitants of the land (i.e. the collapse was not down to morals or the lack of them).

Its also worth considering that judging such things from todays standpoint is near impossible because our world is completely different than it was back then and what might be considered 'moral' or a 'reasonable risk' then is wholly different to what those terms might mean today.

PS - In many cases while not part of an 'empire' countries have retained connections with Britain willingly since things disbanded .... thats why quite a few countries flags still contain 'nods' towards the English one.
Its also worth noting that the empire was 'dismantled' in a far more peaceful way than most such empires throughout history (see Wikipedia atrible for details) which is probably why the Commonwealth still exists and a country the size of England has any sort of influence in world politics (abeit an influence which is diminishing continually as time goes on).

Arrogance is what built the empire and ultimately sustained it. It was torn down only centuries later because people finally realized that it was a bad deal for them. Having reduced your arrogance would've reduced your defensive posture and the empire would certainly have collapsed sooner. There was no winning the 'hearts and minds' of the oppressed.

The 'winning of the hearts and minds' has been done elsewhere throughout history if you look at things - many of the social classes in America (the obvious slaves for instance) were once incredibly oppressed in America but are now as proud to be American as anyone else.

In a similar manner the countries in Europe which are thought of today once didn't exist and were established originally through conquest - its how those countries were integrated into a large identity which largely determined whether they remained together as a whole.

(similarly I could expand more and argue that many of the issues with wars today are in countries which don't have a single self identity for the nation - instead being split largely on multiple identities with clashing ideologies ...)

PS - All this sort of stuff is entirely open to debate and I'm happy to admit its not clear cut in the slightest in this regard; I'm fascinated by 'what if' histories though of what might have happened if different decisions had been made in the past ....

I'd also argue that its not 'arrogance' that built the empire - it was technological advantage combined with aggression and greed.

Good progress I guess. I'm surprised by this step so quickly and how Russia is giving Obama an easy "out" for now.

Inspectors on the ground in Nov. Remember those inspectors in Iraq.

U.S., Russia agree to framework on Syria chemical weapons - CNN.com

Lip service for Putin aside, I don't think the Russians truly understand the conception of exceptionalism:

Report: Russian team will give Tim Tebow $1 million for 2 games - CBSSports.com

Looking forward to how this plays out. Not much happening in domestic politics lately.

GOP ties Obamacare to government shutdown - CNN.com

On that topic, this is fascinating: Health Tracking Poll: Exploring the Public’s Views on the Affordable Care Act (ACA) | The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation

And by "fascinating" I mean all the cross-tabs.

Party & Race - pretty clear difference of opinion

Yeah, the chart itself had pretty much no surprises, for me, but I thought the way they did all the cross-tabs was pretty slick.

Watching Sen Cruz on Fox Sun talk show. This is the first time I've paid attention to him (and know its shallow) ... but is it me or does he have a perpetual smirk?

He reminds me of Q from Star Trek TNG.

Wonder if there is any infighting between the Dems like with the Reps? I don't think so.

In government shutdown brawl, it's GOP House vs. GOP Senate - First Read

It's getting really annoying. They've tried to vote to defund this probably close to 75 times. Now they are betting our debt/credit on something that hasn't happened yet and has a 0% chance of currently happening. They will bear the brunt for this, but it's just not good for anyone.

It's such an odd reversal. For most of my life, it's been the other way with the GOP lock step in agreement with each other and the Dems the splintered group. The Dems are still splintered but the GOP is in all out civil war.

EDIT: I guess that means it's not really a reversal. The Dems are still doing their thing- that's what happens when you're the "big tent/everyone else" party. You'll never get anyone to agree there.

SI

Unfortunately, I think a formula and precedence has been set. A terrorist group does not need to bring down a plane. There's going to be copy cats.

Kenya mall attack: About 30 hostages still inside, sources say - CNN.com

So basically, for the Republicans, they are either in "lockstep" or in "all-out civil war" but for the Democrats, they are either in "disarray" or in "complete harmony"?

Except I never mentioned the "complete harmony" part- the Dems will always be in disarray. Basically, the more narrow ideological party defines how the spectrum is arrayed around them as the other party is basically the "everybody else" party.

SI

I was using the antonyms you would normally use if you replace GOP with DEM. You only game me 3 of the 4 I was looking for. :)

Except the point of the paradigm is that one is not possible.

But if one wanted to instead turn it into one of false equivalencies, one could use it for that.

SI

Oh great. CNN reporting 3 of the gunman are from the US. 2 from MN and 1 from MO.

Not saying it won't end up being true but the source right now is a suspended twitter feed. No way that could end up being inaccurate.

It's not like CNN has a history of fucking up coverages or anything.

What more credible, CNN or a suspended twitter feed?

We'll know soon enough.

'Most of the hostages' rescued from Kenyan mall siege as FBI begins investigating claims of Americans' involvement - World News