dagblog - Comments for "285 to 272"

Such a luster after blood and

artappraiser — Sun, 01 Sep 2013 13:17:37 +0000

In reply to What you are really calling

Such a luster after blood and destruction, that Wolraich. Oh, verily, I can see it so clearly now that you have pointed it out!

I shouldn't joke, actually. I won't here: making a strawman doesn't come close to covering what you do; your accusatory & absurdly over-the-top rhetoric making him evil and you pure is distinctly dystopian. Scary and sickening. Hopefully you're not in charge of anything but shrieking on the internet.

What you are really calling

Peter — Sun, 01 Sep 2013 07:05:18 +0000

In reply to The Assembly is a nightmare.

What you are really calling for here is a lap-dog UN that will bend to the authoritarian pressure of the US. I noticed that your answer to my questions above was a political style evasion. Then you returned to spouting more propaganda about who is responsible for the gas attacks to justify your lust for an orgy of blood and destruction in Syria. Since Barry has decided to draw this crisis out for at least a few weeks you will have to delay satisfying your appetite for humanitarian bloodletting.

I didn't make that suggestion

anna am — Sun, 01 Sep 2013 03:52:42 +0000

In reply to As I mentioned to Ac, his

I didn't make that suggestion so did you mean to respond to me?

The story of the Parliament

artappraiser — Sun, 01 Sep 2013 03:26:17 +0000

In reply to Ed Miliband (leader of the

The story of the Parliament vote is not as simplistic as first presented in the news:

How David Cameron got royally screwed by Ed Miliband over the Syrian intervention both men wanted.
By Alex Massie, ForeignPolicy.com, August 30, 2013

[....] Labour did not oppose the government or Syrian intervention on principle but, instead, chose to do so because it was politically convenient and opportunistic to do so. Thus Labour voted against a government motion that was substantively the same as the amendment it itself had offered. And because the motions advanced by the government and the opposition were each defeated, Britain is now left without a foreign policy at all. ""I'm not with those who rule out action," Miliband said Thursday. Yet his party has managed to rule out action anyway. [.....]

With the government preparing to support an American-led intervention, Miliband sought a number of assurances from Cameron. First, the government should publish the legal advice justifying military action. Second, the government should reveal the intelligence assessments making it clear Assad's regime, and not the rebels, was responsible for the chemical attacks. Third, Cameron should make it clear that Britain would continue -- however hopelessly -- to try to secure United Nations authorization for a military strike. Fourth, Parliament would need to vote again, once these conditions had been met, before British troops could be part of any international response.

Cameron, albeit with some reluctance, agreed to each of these conditions. The motion the government put down did not commit Britain to war. Indeed, it did not do very much more than advocate a wait-and-see-but-rule-nothing-out approach. Having been given the reassurances he sought, Miliband then voted against a motion containing all those reassurances [.....]

Even if Massie is spinning Tory talking points, there was obviously a lot of crass- political-advantage-over-good-of-country involved. This is the reason the vote itself continues to be big news across the pond, as well as there being a lot of talk about personal animus. For them, I get the impression that it's sorta like the ways of our current American Congress just invaded the halls of Parliament.

But if you believe that he

A Guy Called LULU — Sun, 01 Sep 2013 02:38:59 +0000

In reply to It's not about showing "our

But if you believe that he did it and that a strike will deter him from doing it again, as I do, then it is unconscionable not to attack.

You define the situation under which you support an attack with such narrow and justifying parameters that there is no way any conscientious person would come to a different conclusion if those parameters were met. If in reality there was evidence to warrant the level of faith that you show in the details necessary to justify such a decision there would be no need or use in debating what to do and I would be right with you.

The Assembly is a nightmare.

Michael Wolraich — Sat, 31 Aug 2013 21:39:22 +0000

In reply to Agree that if Congress

The Assembly is a nightmare. We need a better Security Council with expanded membership and no single-state veto. I do believe that international consensus is important, I just think that the U.N. does not effectively provide it.

(No subject)

tmccarthy0 — Sat, 31 Aug 2013 21:38:48 +0000

In reply to It's not about showing "our

As I mentioned to Ac, his

Michael Wolraich — Sat, 31 Aug 2013 21:36:38 +0000

In reply to Not credibility as in backing

As I mentioned to Ac, his proposal is not much different from what we already did because it depends on the threat of attack.

In other words, Obama already said, "Don't use your chemical weapons or else..." Now you're suggesting that he say, "Give up your chemical weapons or else..." But either way, it's the "or else" that's at issue here, and if Assad ignored the first "or else," I don't see why he would concern himself with the second.

Agree that if Congress

Flavius — Sat, 31 Aug 2013 21:34:48 +0000

In reply to Congress will probably

Agree that if Congress doesn't authorize Obama shouldn't act.

And that there would be no point going to the security council.

I think it could go to the Assembly for it to consider some sort of resolution. But personally I don't think we should do that

Lawyers always say "don't ask a question unless you're sure of the answer you're going to get ".I don't know the answer we'd get from the Assembly and I don't think Obama should invite a situation in which Congress says "A" and the Assembly might say :"B".

It's not about showing "our

Michael Wolraich — Sat, 31 Aug 2013 21:32:54 +0000

In reply to Our Presidents, in order to

It's not about showing "our delicate sensibilities." Chemical weapons are not just "one particular way" to die. If Assad were to begin using them on a large scale, he would multiply the civilian death toll in a matter of days, not to mention the mass suffering of those who survive. Chemical weapons--meaning sarin and related nerve-agents--are among the most deadly and horrible weapons on earth.

If you don't believe that Assad used chemicals weapons, that's one thing. If you don't believe that a U.S. strike will stop him from expanding his chemical weapon attacks, that's another.

But if you believe that he did it and that a strike will deter him from doing it again, as I do, then it is unconscionable not to attack.