MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE
by Michael Wolraich
Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop
MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE by Michael Wolraich Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop |
By Mark Tran, guardian.co.uk, August 22, 2013
The Syria crisis reached another grim milestone as UN aid agencies reported that the number of registered child refugees had reached 1 million, most of whom were under 11. Within the country, more than 2 million children have been displaced, they said.
About 7,000 children have been killed since the conflict began. Of the hundreds of people killed in an apparent gas attack in rebel-held parts of eastern Damascus on Wednesday, many were children.
"This 1 millionth child refugee is not just another number," said Anthony Lake, executive director of Unicef, the UN agency for children. "This is a real child ripped from home, maybe even from a family, facing horrors we can only begin to comprehend."[....]
Comments
excerpt from Contrasting fates of Syria's refugees, BBC News, August 23, 2013
by artappraiser on Fri, 08/23/2013 - 4:57pm
Doctors without Borders says somebody clearly used a neurotoxin effecting approximately 3,600 people on August 21:
http://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/press/release.cfm?id=7029&cat=press...
Note that
In addition to 1,600 vials of atropine supplied over recent months, MSF has now dispatched 7,000 additional vials to facilities in the area. Treatment of neurotoxic patients is now being fully integrated into MSF’s medical strategies in all its programs in Syria.
by artappraiser on Sat, 08/24/2013 - 3:09pm
by artappraiser on Sat, 08/24/2013 - 6:57pm
This entire situation is ghoulishly interesting. Cui bono? It would seem to be extremely unlikely that this chemical attack could not be traced back to its source even if it took a little while. If it could be of actual benefit to an identified player then it seems to me that the major suspect must be some faction of the rebels. Any other entity would be damaged big-time if proven or most strongly implicated as the attacker.
So, what entity has more to gain than it has to lose even if they get caught? Again, possibly the rebels. If this chemical attack results in heavy duty intervention by America and Assad is defeated then the rebels would be the winners and the use of the gas would have been successful even if later tied to them. It seems that whoever made the decision to use the chemical weapon either wants U.S. intervention real bad even with the possibility growing bigger out of that of a larger-scale regional war erupting. That, or they are stupid and irrarational.
Anyway, here is some more analysis and speculation.
by A Guy Called LULU on Sun, 08/25/2013 - 11:11am
Has there been any reporting as to which rebel faction was attacked? Does this faction /group support America's end game?
by Resistance on Sun, 08/25/2013 - 5:30pm
everybody's got a theory, here's just a few.
Meanwhile, I wasn't aware that anyone knew for sure what America's endgame was here. I thought one of the problems, in the eyes of those who would like to see more involvement, was that America doesn't have a clear end game.
by artappraiser on Sun, 08/25/2013 - 6:36pm
I take this as Don Kazeta's real summary:
I.E. This is a fun analysis game we like to play, just like M.D.'s debating diagnosis of Van Gogh's ailments in medical journals, but it is not safe to use this to make real world decisions and really is of no significance whatsoever.
The Doctors without Borders opinion is big news precisely because it is not one of these guys doing analysis games from internet videos. They have a long relationship with the medical providers on the ground (who do speak Arabic, were there, and did have hands on the patients) and they report:
by artappraiser on Sun, 08/25/2013 - 6:18pm
No doubt partly because, from the Guardian's live blog today:
This will, of course, get him lots of criticism forever for ruining U.S. cred by making threats and then not backing them up.
by artappraiser on Mon, 08/26/2013 - 2:02pm
by artappraiser on Mon, 08/26/2013 - 1:09pm
I don't want to go to war in Syria, but I can't say for certain that no good would come of it.
by Aaron Carine on Sun, 08/25/2013 - 8:42am
" but I can't say for certain no good would come of it" That is a truly frightening statement!
by Peter (not verified) on Sun, 08/25/2013 - 10:39pm
You're entitled to your opinion, of course, but I think the statement was reasonable.
An American war MIGHT save lives, if it ended Assad's carnage quickly, and a rebel victory MIGHT make things better for Syrians. I don't think it's very likely, and I believe in the principle of nonintervention in a state's internal affairs, but we don't know the future, do we? That's way I couldn't "say for certain".
by Aaron Carine on Mon, 08/26/2013 - 7:44am
I believe the frightening bit was the "but" part, as in, I don't want to go to war, but if there's a chance it will help, [implied] maybe we should…
The default position should be that we shouldn't go to war, and there'd better be far better than a chance that it would do some good before we deviate from that default position. (I realize you didn't use the word "chance", but that was the implication I got from the way you worded your sentence.)
by Verified Atheist on Mon, 08/26/2013 - 8:23am
You err, I believe in using the word "go to war." That's why you get the reaction you got. It just implies a bigger war and more deaths and more and greater destruction.
Do most people consider U.N. forces' peacekeeping mission in the Congo "going to war"? Is "going to war" the only way the world can deal with these kind of civil wars?
I replied here precisely because it struck me as kind of wack to me for Peter to label your statement frightening when it's concerning a civil war where 100,000 have died, chemical weapons have been used, and there are 1.7 million refugees and 4 million more internally displaced. If that's not already frightening, I don't what is.
I got what you meant and the spirit in which it was meant. But I was trying to think about why it was interpreted so negatively. It's because you used "go to war." There's a serious problem with the different definitions of "go to war." As I said, do UN Forces interventions fit "going to war"? How about NATO enforcing no fly zones? Is that war, or an attempt to prevent war? What about targeted assassinations? Yes, heck, let's do Hitler, what if the US had drones then and a US drone, in concert with the UK effort, managed to get him and all his main guys at a meeting before the U.S. even entered WWII? Would that be considered entering war or prevention of entering a war?
Pre-emptive: I myself suspect the Syrian situation is too far gone for any military intervention I can think of to do any good for Syrian people and the region. And I think most of the powers than be agree with that. Whatever they are debating doing right now is merely because of the "red line" factor of using chemical weapons, and that's concerning maintaining international warfare conventions, it's not about trying to minimize the effects of civil war in Syria on the Syrian people. And regarding the moral questions and wisdom of doing that: what would have happened in the 1990's in former Yugoslavia if one of the players had used chemical weapons? Would it still be considered okay for everyone else to continue a policy of non-interference?
by artappraiser on Mon, 08/26/2013 - 11:26am
Well, for me it wasn't just the "go to war", but the implication that the only reason required to "go to war" was that he wasn't certain it wouldn't help (a perverse reversal of reasonable doubt), which when coupled with that phrase is quite a scary way of putting things. On the other hand, your position provides not just a change of phrase from "go to war", but also a detailed explanation of what the benefits and costs would be.
That said, I'm quite certain that Aaron didn't mean it that way, but that's the way it came off to me at least.
by Verified Atheist on Mon, 08/26/2013 - 11:27am
I didn't feel that uncertainty about the results of a war was a reason for going to war. The reasons for going to war would be the ones we've been hearing from McCain--stopping the slaughter of Syrians, overthrowing Assad, which will supposedly usher in a era of liberty etc. I don't find these reasons very persuasive.
I probably should have written something like " I don't want to go to war in Syria, but there is a small chance that war would improve things" and maybe added " the chances that it would turn out well aren't good enough for me to support military intervention".
by Aaron Carine on Mon, 08/26/2013 - 1:57pm
This type of R2P thinking common in Liberal-War Hawk circles will cause much more death and destruction than anything the locals can manage. The paternalistic nature of this dogma exposes its true intent which is to expand US control through the use of overwhelming bloody force. The US and its minions have been fueling the fires of this conflict from the beginning and now we are to believe that more fuel will put out the fire. We have absolutely no power to stop the coming aggression, by the US and it's lackeys in Europe, against Syria but at least we can reject the propaganda used to justify this deceit.
by Peter (not verified) on Mon, 08/26/2013 - 3:23pm
First, I said I didn't support an American war in Syria. We don't know that an American war will cause "much more death and destruction" than would have occurred anyway; it probably didn't in Libya(I opposed that intervention too).
I don't think that everything the United States does is for the purpose of expanding control, and I'm a little troubled by your last sentence, in which you seem to identify "Syria" with the Assad forces. The rebels have a better claim to represent Syrians.
I
by Aaron Carine on Mon, 08/26/2013 - 3:34pm
I don't know your true feelings on this issue but you couch your words against war with R2P rhetoric. Your statement about Libya is debatable but ultimately a straw-man argument. The Army of Syria and Assad are Syrians while only some of the rebels are Syrians, so you think that foreign forces should rule Syria?
by Peter (not verified) on Mon, 08/26/2013 - 9:11pm
Saying that the rebels are foreigners is insane. A small fraction of them are foreigners.
http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/News/2188/19/Who%E2%80%99s-fighting-in-Syria-...
I don't know what R2P means. Probably one of those labels people use to avoid coming up with an actual argument.
by Aaron Carine on Mon, 08/26/2013 - 10:05pm
R2P = the principle of Responsibility to Protect. Some lefties like to use it in a derogatory manner as if it is one and the same as international interventionism promoted by U.S neo-conservatives, but it actually is a United Nations initiative established in 2005 that says a sovereign state has a responsibility to protect its citizens from genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing, and that if it doesn't, the international community can try to do something about it. It was used for the Libya intervention in 2011 (which passed the Security Council because Russia and China abstained,) but military action is far from the only recourse it references, that is actually "last resort."
by artappraiser on Tue, 08/27/2013 - 3:16am
I appreciate the clarification.
by Verified Atheist on Mon, 08/26/2013 - 4:39pm
I know we've had this discussion before and it's healthy to ponder the issue of whether force is appropriate under this or that circumstance.
I would make Assad bleed personally if it would stop the gassing.
This reflexive resistance to anything military feels eerie to me at this point.
We need to pinch ourselves tonight and understand that the consensus seems to be that we should not respond to the gassing of civilians. We should not do that, period. That's not everyone's view, but it seems to be something of a strong consensus.
Now, if someone wants to argue that we need more proof (what level?), so be it. The real question is what should we do if we have good reason to conclude that Assad has used poison gas on civilians.
I just don't buy this reflexive isolationism. I understand that there is no end game. One way or the other the Islamic world and its various factions--particularly in the countries like Syria that are the product of a post-WWI drawing competition--will proceed to settle scores and I agree there's probably nothing we can do about it.
But I would support military risks to stop the use of poison gas against civilians. I would do that without reservation.
Addendum: And I would support military action to stop the use of poison gas against civilians even if the U.S. has blood on its hands for this or that transgression.
by Bruce Levine on Mon, 08/26/2013 - 10:31pm
Military action is a pretty general term. I don't know what we could do to stop the use of poison gas besides invading the country and taking it over. If we could even take it over by invading the country.
Other than that any other type of military action would only be a symbolic gesture.that would register our disapproval but likely wouldn't stop Assad (or whoever if it wasn't Assad) from using gas again.
What exactly do you mean by military action? Boots on the ground? What do you think we could and should do that would have a reasonable chance of stopping the use of poison gas?
by ocean-kat on Tue, 08/27/2013 - 4:12am
I am no military expert OK. But I hope our government is working hard right now to determine what to do, and with as much Islamic support as possible. I am going to give my government and our military leaders the benefit of the doubt on this one. I am going to presume that the president will choose among the best of bad options.
If the international community cannot respond to this with something more than collective condemnation and hand-wringing, then international law is even more meaningless than it has been in the past.
by Bruce Levine on Tue, 08/27/2013 - 7:26am
Do you mean that you would personally make him bleed or that you would personally support someone else making him bleed? Just curious but I will say that willingness to personally do the deed you promote is by far the more ethical stance, IMO, than to wish for others to do so while being unwilling to act with your own hands. If it was only as simple as that.
Paul Woodward has long been calling for intervention in Syria to stop the carnage that has been going on and will continue after any punitive strike which is intended only to push back against chemical weapon use but not intended to get involved to an extent that some side wins. I this case our desired winner cannot be Assad and so would need be the honorable, god-fearing, fair-fighting rebels. Then maybe the killing by other conventional means would stop. You said yourself that that is an unlikely outcome. Should we, by some military action, kill to determine how others get to kill and in doing so likely prolong that conventional killing? If we cannot or will not take on the load of doing good then maybe we should at least not get involved with the bad.
Addressing the situation after a response only intended to stop chemical attacks, Woodward says:
I know that you have expressed strong feelings about stopping the conventional killing too. I just am adding some further thoughts of mine which are well expressed by others to what you have said here and now. And yes, you can include me among those reflexively against militarism which has apparently become the only alternative to isolationism. Getting fingers burned over and over does not numb the reflexive jumping back from a hot stove.
by A Guy Called LULU on Tue, 08/27/2013 - 12:07pm
Repeating the term" reflexive" is falling into a trap that labels you as some kind of defensive reactionary. Using the vocabulary of those who seem to worship violence and aggression, for whatever Good reasons leaves them in control of the debate. Anti-War, Anti- Aggression and Pro- Peace are much stronger positions to work from. What is truly troubling about the debate here and elsewhere is how many people still cling to the myth of Amerikan Exceptionalism to justify murdering others while ignoring the hypocrisy of that delusion. We supplied Saddam with chemical weapons, we supply and use depleted uranium munitions, cluster bombs and white P around the world but when someone uses some kind of gas to kill we become the sole arbiter of what is right and what and who is wrong. The Ugly Amerikan is busy educating the Natives around the globe and we wonder why they hate us.
by Peter (not verified) on Tue, 08/27/2013 - 1:12pm
I'm quite certain that no one here is clinging to the myth of American Exceptionalism. I believe you're allowing past experiences to color how you're interpreting what has been written.
by Verified Atheist on Tue, 08/27/2013 - 2:48pm
by Bruce Levine on Tue, 08/27/2013 - 3:04pm
Re: we become the sole arbiter of what is right and what and who is wrong
That all depends on whether you believe "Amerika" is king of the world and can tell everyone else what to do, of course
France ready to 'punish' those behind Syria gas attack
Turkey says Syria chemical attack must not go unpunished
Germany: Syria Must Be Punished if Gas Use Confirmed
etc.
How about that intervention in Mali? You got a screed about French imperialism posted anywhere that one can reference? And the Saudis in Bahrain? Rwandan forces in Congo? Hezbollah in Syria for that matter?
The facts are that everyone's been waffling on Syria for two years, and now you want to make threats about chemical weapons use (not the first allegation, I'd like to point out,) into an agitprop narrative fighting the ghost of the G.W. Bush administration.
I can't take anything you say seriously after seeing what you've written here. You sound very much like the formerly-active Dagblog member "Oleeb," same simplistic preachy shtick about the Ameerkan empire ruling the world.
by artappraiser on Tue, 08/27/2013 - 4:37pm
Hey, what's The Narrative's explanation for why the Ameerkan empire client, the Egyptian military, is being so disobedient? And when exactly, at what point in time, did it lose its control of Assad? In the previous version of The Narrative, I thought he was one of Ameerka's lackeys....
by artappraiser on Tue, 08/27/2013 - 5:12pm
I didn't think my meaning was unclear. I would gladly see Assad bleed i.e. die in order to stop the gassing of babies.
by Bruce Levine on Tue, 08/27/2013 - 3:03pm
The only thing you made clear to me is that you would like to see Assad killed if that would stop the gas attacks. My question, which you did not answer, was whether you are committed enough to your desired outcome that you would do the deed with your own hands. Never mind that though, if you did choose to answer I would probably go on to ask whether you would be willing to strangle him yourself and hang on tight while he went through his death spasms or only push a button from thousands of safe miles away, because a lot of dying will surely continue close to Assad. I expect I would get another simplistic non-answer to that question too.
Architect of Syria War Plan Doubts Surgical Strikes Will Work
You also did not respond to whether you would kill him to stop the gassing even if it ultimately meant more people would [likely] die than otherwise.
by A Guy Called LULU on Tue, 08/27/2013 - 3:37pm
What difference does it make if I say on some blog to an invisible person named lulu that I would or would not be willing and/or able to kill Assad myself?
Seriously lulu I'm allowed to express my opinion without being interrogated by you as to me as a person. Stick to the issue, please, as a matter of common decency. I find your question unnecessarily argumentative, at best, and off-topic in any event.
by Bruce Levine on Tue, 08/27/2013 - 4:32pm
You are commenting on a public forum and expressing an urge to kill. That invites a response. I'll say any damned thing I want to about that and I'll question your statements and the mentality that produce them any damned time I choose. As a matter of decency. Bullshit. I happen to think "... it's healthy to ponder the issue of whether force is appropriate under this or that circumstance."
What do you think the topic was that I wrongly strayed from?
by A Guy Called LULU on Wed, 08/28/2013 - 12:22pm
That is just a lie lulu and a defamatory one for what it is worth. I invite you to withdraw that allegation, as any decent human being would.
I think I know why you're stalking me on this lulu. I think you hate the fact that it's not about Israel, and I think you think that all I care about is Israel and I think that you asked me if I would do the killing myself as a veiled reference to the kind of dual loyalty you have suggested of me in the past (please don't deny it lulu), or perhaps even worse still, that you would attempt to use my statement as evidence that Jews have other people doing their fighting for them.
You can have the last word lulu. I am writing under a last chance warning, and I don't want to have to take a chance on blowing things because of you, or what I believe is in your soul.
by Bruce Levine on Wed, 08/28/2013 - 1:22pm
This nitpicking focus on a sentence seems silly to me. I too would make Assad bleed personally if it would stop the gassing. Doesn't mean I'm suggesting you and I rent a plane for a secret mission into Syria to assassinate Assad.
I just don't think there's anything we can do to stop the use of poison gas. I guess a symbolic gesture is called for. I'm just not going to pretend its anything but a symbolic gesture.
by ocean-kat on Wed, 08/28/2013 - 2:20pm
Sorry OK. I didn't notice this before--otherwise engaged. . . I absolutely understand and have no reason to contest the validity of your position. The only thing, I thought, we were discussing before the sidetracking--certainly you and I at least had been doing so--was whether the cost of a response outweighs the benefits of no response. I guess I feel that the world community still, to this very day, has some real universal red lines that need to be respected, and I think that poison gas is one of those things that I feel still was something that all agreed was off limits--given the horrors associated with the use of poison gas on and off the battlefields over the last century. And I say this having read recently that the Reagan Administration appears to have taken steps to cover up the Iraqi's use of poison gas.
So I understand and truly respect your position. But it just doesn't do it for me in the end I guess.
Many thanks OK, as always.
by Bruce Levine on Wed, 08/28/2013 - 3:49pm
You are strongly asserting a desire for action beyond "condemnation and hand-wringing". I take that as a hope for a military response. The military response you hope for will kill people. Almost certainly the wrong people for the wrong reason.
If you choose to say now that you would not do the killing yourself but merely wish someone else would conveniently do it instead, then I will agree that my language was imprecise, that you did not express an urge to personally do any killing but merely the hope that someone else would kill because you are outraged.
You have often expressed an abiding, unashamed, deep love for the state of Israel and for its people. Does that not imply a loyalty to them? If I were to call that evidence of a dual loyalty it would be because of an assumption that you also have loyalty to the U.S. You do, don't you? You can count to two, can't you.
by A Guy Called LULU on Wed, 08/28/2013 - 2:24pm
Res ipsa.
by Bruce Levine on Wed, 08/28/2013 - 2:37pm
I hope you are not banned for your comments here bslev, you perform an important function by exposing others to the reactionary mind and the faulty, biased logic it produces. You lead with a bloody assault on Assad, however deserved, then retreat to the mercantile cost/benefit analysis all cloaked in a humanitarian veil.
by Peter (not verified) on Thu, 08/29/2013 - 11:49am