Alan, I am still taking in info regarding what is wise or unwise as regards Syria. Although I know there's always another election coming, in my heart I don't give a lick what is politically smart, I care about what is the right thing to do. I have been listening to some of the conversation on PBS and NPR, and listening to what people are saying and feeling about this, including you. I am trying to think outside the box.
What occurred to me tonight that when people say they don't want us to interfere in another country's civil war, I wonder if that is our time's version of the Star Trek Prime Directive not to interfere with a developing planet's troubles...at least until they have developed warp drive.
Of course, all people on Earth are cognizant that there are many peoples and approaches in this world of our planet.
In Star Trek there was also the Omega Dieective. The exception which allowed interference was to destroy any Onega molecules. Apparently these molecules had later come together and had the power to destroy everything. So any starship that had gone back in time was authorized to destroy those molecules. Perhaps, for oyr conversational purposes, this mifht be akin to nuclear capability?
But what about a leader who uses chemical weapons against their own people, including children? The world claims to abhor this, and it has been said (by more humans than just President Obama) that this sort of treachery cannot be permitted as it is a war crime.
So what might you recommend? (Please, anyone, join the conversation.)
I am not in favour of military strikes, short of a Special Ops means of removing chemical warfare capability. Would it suffice to arrest Assad and try him for war crimes against humanity? What would that require? Today it was suggested that our government has more proof that Assad was involved. Yet somehow it doesn't seem convincing enough to muster greater support.
Yes, it's a poser, listener. I referred to Coolidge because he was careful not to get himself into situations that lacked adequate political support. A cautious man, very politically astute, and very popular.
The major question for us with respect to Syria, as I see it, is whether the US can take *effective* action, and I don't see how it can. Invading Syria is militarily out of the question, air strikes will be ineffective, and assassination attempts are unlikely to turn out well. What else is there? Arming the rebels? We're already doing that.
The US is not in much of a position to criticize use of poison gas in the Middle East; remember that when Saddam Hussein was our good buddy we didn't merely ignore his use of poison gas, we facilitated it by sharing information obtained by our "national technical means." (i.e., we used satellite--and probably signals intelligence--to help him target Iranian defense forces.) As for the effectiveness of poison gas, I am reminded of two instances of its use. It wiped out left end of the Allied line at Ypres, but the Germans lost the war. And the Brits used poison gas on Iraqi "rebel" villages to limited effect; Winston Churchill complained about how it failed to subdue resistance by the ungrateful natives. Yes, the use of such weapons is dreadful, and Assad is likely to be held to account in time--but not by us. As for funneling more support to the rebels, that will probably happen--but obviously it won't be any more secret than it is now, and once weapons are delivered their use and control will be out of our hands.
I figure our most likely course of action is to make measly contributions to support of refugees and pour small arms into the country. Not a good choice, but there are no good choices. My opinion only.
"and once weapons are delivered their use and control will be out of our hands." Should read "and once weapons are delivered their use control will be out of our hands."
Listener, I would draw the analogy to all WMD, not just neuclear. Also, I agree that surgical strikes to remove chemical weapons caches would be something I could support.
I have also long favored supplying arms and training to the rebels - no "boots on the ground," in the sense of combat forces. Arm the Syrians and teach them how to use the arms most effectively. That would fulfill America's mandate to fight oppression and assist emerging democracies. We don't have to like the result of eventual elections in a free and democratic Syria, just as we don't have to like Hamas having been freely and fairly elected in Gaza, but neither do we have the right to throw a tantrom about those results. Our behavior vis a vis Hamass in Gaza is embarrassingly juvenile. We must not make the same mistake with whomever Syria eventually elects. And we have a moral obligation to take a stand against the Syrian government's use of chemical weapons on its own citizens. This is the right th ing to do, regardless of how many other countries, like Britain and Egypt, are war-weary and thus cannot muster the moral force to stand up for what's right.
Eventually trying Asad for war crimes is probably a good idear, but one that must wait till he is ousted. I do not think the US should be directly involved in regime change; that is best left to the people of Syria.
any holding of Assad (sorry for prev. misspelling) accountable for war crimes must be done, not by the US but by the World Court.
Alan, what we did vis a vis Iraq's use of CM against Iran, despicable as it was, cannot be used as an excuse to do nothing now. In other words, one US president's having done something evil a) is not automatically right just because a US president does it and b) does not set a precedent that allows a subsequent US president either do do similar evil or to do nothing at all in similar circumstances.
Tommy held Johnny down while Joey beat the crap out of him cannot be used by Tommy's cousin Timmy as a justification for failing to assist/attempt to rescue Janet when he sees Bobby beating the crap out of her.
Reagan and Bush41's actions are not a template for Obama's!
On the way to work this morning I saw that the raisin harvest is well underway; some vineyards seem not to have been picked yet, some are drying, in some the raisins have dried and been wrapped up in the paper trays (making "biscuits) to equalize their moisture, and in some they have been picked up. Almonds seem largely harvested, pistachios not yet, and alfalfa might be about ready for another cutting.
Pardon my disjointed comments. Re nuclear weapons development, it has been obvious from the beginning that any signatory of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty would become technically able to develop a nuclear weapon. Consider Brazil's covert nuclear weapons program, for instance. And then there are the non-signatories, of course--such as Israel, Pakistan, and India. As I recall it was Britain who facilitated Israel's nuclear weapons program, we "merely" condone it, despite its evidently insane scale. In the case of India, we are now helping them to develop their nuclear technology. Aside from the US, no one has ever used nuclear weapons; they seem to function to prevent major wars. The obvious temptation to develop breakout technology as part of a nuclear power program would be to deter attack by a powerful enemy. In the case of Iran, that would include both the United States (which has repeatedly threatened Iran with nuclear annihilation) and Israel, not to mention the potential threat from Pakistan.
Hillary Clinton's threats to unleash nuclear weapons on Iran (which has never attacked a foreign country) is one of the reasons I would never vote for her. I consider it shameless pandering to those who demonize Iran, and completely counterproductive. No one who said such things to gain votes should have been nominated for Secretary of State. But my friends know I have an attitude. [grin]
The problem with war crimes trials is that they never happen in media res--only after it's all over. And then only if the target lost.
As Phil pointed out, this has been going on for two years, and I seriously doubt if dying from gas or bombs makes a whole lot of difference to a child.
In the larger world, the web of alliances there makes this an especially tricky deal.
*Our* need to do something right NOW complicates everything. . . .
I don't know what the answer is. Hoping and praying that Brer President does.
The Roman historian Suetonius, in De vita Caesarum, tells that Augustus deplored rashness in a military commander and so "festina lente" was one of his favourite sayings:
"He thought nothing less becoming in a well-trained leader than haste and rashness, and, accordingly, favourite sayings of his were: "Make haste slowly"; "Better a safe commander than a bold"; and "That is done quickly enough which is done well enough."
Much better advice for a President, methinks, than "When you don't know what to do, do something."
I wonder if it would throw a big monkey wrench into the NSA e-mail spying program if enough people started including randomized text strings with their e-mails... Grab a section of the Bible, the Constitution, a statistical summary or the business section of the newspaper, run it through a randomizer (free online) and splice it into one's e-mails. Toss in a header to look like an encryption key, maybe. If a billion people did that ten times a day, would that produce so much noise that it would bust their spy system? Congress would seem unlikely to make it against the law to transmit gibberish with intent to make spying difficult. A small revolutionary act, repeated on a big enough scale, can certainly become an overwhelming force
Excellent idea! The methodology is maturing in my mind; there are also java (operating system independent) online emulators for various electomechanical cipher devices, some quite powerful, which produce an obviously ciphered output.
My gut feeling is that this works out to a positive, but, goodness, what an awkward way of putting it!
Presumed translation: Every member of the committee thinks what Assad has done is atrocious.
Why not just say that to begin with? Oh, wait! you did say a US senator was speaking. The equivalent of the Boy Scout Pledge for senators is Obfuscate, Prevaricate, obstruct.
Just want to add that I feel the biggest difference between Assad's use of chemical weapons and most other uses of it, is that it was used indiscriminately on children as well as adults.
Just like the usual case with conventional bombs, I'm afraid. My bet is that if anyone holds Assad to account it will be the people of his own country. But he could cheat the hangman.
The movie version. Saw it in New York with Edwin. Then with him on HBO. Have also seen some of the TV episodes. The books were a "gift" from my eldest, long ago.
D'y'know what's bothering me in the back of my mind as I hear all the latest rhetoric about Syria? It seems to me the talk has turned to what a bad leader President Obama is and it's been days since I heard anyone comment on what a bad leader President Assad is.
I wonder if to some extent people so don't want to face the reality, that Assad has done atrocities, that they are pointing the finger at the messenger.
I do not agree with the use of violence. I just wish there were a simple way to disarm Assad. All I can come up with is for the world to band together and arrest him for war crimes. Take him out of commission.
Does anyone know who would be next in command who would then take his place?
I keep coming back to this: We need to bring the most intelligent and creative minds together...Barack Obama, Desmond Tutu, the Dalai Lama, a general or two, and definitely the best diplomats in the world. What might they come up with if they got together to think outside the box?
Dean es número uno!
ReplyDeleteAlan, I am still taking in info regarding what is wise or unwise as regards Syria. Although I know there's always another election coming, in my heart I don't give a lick what is politically smart, I care about what is the right thing to do. I have been listening to some of the conversation on PBS and NPR, and listening to what people are saying and feeling about this, including you. I am trying to think outside the box.
ReplyDeleteWhat occurred to me tonight that when people say they don't want us to interfere in another country's civil war, I wonder if that is our time's version of the Star Trek Prime Directive not to interfere with a developing planet's troubles...at least until they have developed warp drive.
Of course, all people on Earth are cognizant that there are many peoples and approaches in this world of our planet.
In Star Trek there was also the Omega Dieective. The exception which allowed interference was to destroy any Onega molecules. Apparently these molecules had later come together and had the power to destroy everything. So any starship that had gone back in time was authorized to destroy those molecules. Perhaps, for oyr conversational purposes, this mifht be akin to nuclear capability?
But what about a leader who uses chemical weapons against their own people, including children? The world claims to abhor this, and it has been said (by more humans than just President Obama) that this sort of treachery cannot be permitted as it is a war crime.
So what might you recommend? (Please, anyone, join the conversation.)
I am not in favour of military strikes, short of a Special Ops means of removing chemical warfare capability. Would it suffice to arrest Assad and try him for war crimes against humanity? What would that require? Today it was suggested that our government has more proof that Assad was involved. Yet somehow it doesn't seem convincing enough to muster greater support.
I do hope the world won't yawn and turn away.
Yes, it's a poser, listener. I referred to Coolidge because he was careful not to get himself into situations that lacked adequate political support. A cautious man, very politically astute, and very popular.
DeleteThe major question for us with respect to Syria, as I see it, is whether the US can take *effective* action, and I don't see how it can. Invading Syria is militarily out of the question, air strikes will be ineffective, and assassination attempts are unlikely to turn out well. What else is there? Arming the rebels? We're already doing that.
The US is not in much of a position to criticize use of poison gas in the Middle East; remember that when Saddam Hussein was our good buddy we didn't merely ignore his use of poison gas, we facilitated it by sharing information obtained by our "national technical means." (i.e., we used satellite--and probably signals intelligence--to help him target Iranian defense forces.) As for the effectiveness of poison gas, I am reminded of two instances of its use. It wiped out left end of the Allied line at Ypres, but the Germans lost the war. And the Brits used poison gas on Iraqi "rebel" villages to limited effect; Winston Churchill complained about how it failed to subdue resistance by the ungrateful natives. Yes, the use of such weapons is dreadful, and Assad is likely to be held to account in time--but not by us. As for funneling more support to the rebels, that will probably happen--but obviously it won't be any more secret than it is now, and once weapons are delivered their use and control will be out of our hands.
I figure our most likely course of action is to make measly contributions to support of refugees and pour small arms into the country. Not a good choice, but there are no good choices. My opinion only.
--Alan
"and once weapons are delivered their use and control will be out of our hands." Should read "and once weapons are delivered their use control will be out of our hands."
Delete--Alan
I disagree that it is not something that we are to hold Assad accountable for. Ultimately, I believe that we are all responsible for one another.
DeleteListener, I would draw the analogy to all WMD, not just neuclear. Also, I agree that surgical strikes to remove chemical weapons caches would be something I could support.
DeleteI have also long favored supplying arms and training to the rebels - no "boots on the ground," in the sense of combat forces. Arm the Syrians and teach them how to use the arms most effectively. That would fulfill America's mandate to fight oppression and assist emerging democracies. We don't have to like the result of eventual elections in a free and democratic Syria, just as we don't have to like Hamas having been freely and fairly elected in Gaza, but neither do we have the right to throw a tantrom about those results. Our behavior vis a vis Hamass in Gaza is embarrassingly juvenile. We must not make the same mistake with whomever Syria eventually elects. And we have a moral obligation to take a stand against the Syrian government's use of chemical weapons on its own citizens. This is the right th ing to do, regardless of how many other countries, like Britain and Egypt, are war-weary and thus cannot muster the moral force to stand up for what's right.
Eventually trying Asad for war crimes is probably a good idear, but one that must wait till he is ousted. I do not think the US should be directly involved in regime change; that is best left to the people of Syria.
any holding of Assad (sorry for prev. misspelling) accountable for war crimes must be done, not by the US but by the World Court.
DeleteAlan, what we did vis a vis Iraq's use of CM against Iran, despicable as it was, cannot be used as an excuse to do nothing now. In other words, one US president's having done something evil a) is not automatically right just because a US president does it and b) does not set a precedent that allows a subsequent US president either do do similar evil or to do nothing at all in similar circumstances.
Tommy held Johnny down while Joey beat the crap out of him cannot be used by Tommy's cousin Timmy as a justification for failing to assist/attempt to rescue Janet when he sees Bobby beating the crap out of her.
Reagan and Bush41's actions are not a template for Obama's!
On the way to work this morning I saw that the raisin harvest is well underway; some vineyards seem not to have been picked yet, some are drying, in some the raisins have dried and been wrapped up in the paper trays (making "biscuits) to equalize their moisture, and in some they have been picked up. Almonds seem largely harvested, pistachios not yet, and alfalfa might be about ready for another cutting.
ReplyDelete--Alan
On a happier note, I don't believe I have ever read or heard the official version of The Three Little Kittens. Thanks for sharing, cat.
ReplyDelete--Alan
Pardon my disjointed comments. Re nuclear weapons development, it has been obvious from the beginning that any signatory of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty would become technically able to develop a nuclear weapon. Consider Brazil's covert nuclear weapons program, for instance. And then there are the non-signatories, of course--such as Israel, Pakistan, and India. As I recall it was Britain who facilitated Israel's nuclear weapons program, we "merely" condone it, despite its evidently insane scale. In the case of India, we are now helping them to develop their nuclear technology. Aside from the US, no one has ever used nuclear weapons; they seem to function to prevent major wars. The obvious temptation to develop breakout technology as part of a nuclear power program would be to deter attack by a powerful enemy. In the case of Iran, that would include both the United States (which has repeatedly threatened Iran with nuclear annihilation) and Israel, not to mention the potential threat from Pakistan.
ReplyDeleteHillary Clinton's threats to unleash nuclear weapons on Iran (which has never attacked a foreign country) is one of the reasons I would never vote for her. I consider it shameless pandering to those who demonize Iran, and completely counterproductive. No one who said such things to gain votes should have been nominated for Secretary of State. But my friends know I have an attitude. [grin]
--Alan
The problem with war crimes trials is that they never happen in media res--only after it's all over. And then only if the target lost.
ReplyDeleteAs Phil pointed out, this has been going on for two years, and I seriously doubt if dying from gas or bombs makes a whole lot of difference to a child.
In the larger world, the web of alliances there makes this an especially tricky deal.
*Our* need to do something right NOW complicates everything. . . .
I don't know what the answer is. Hoping and praying that Brer President does.
The Roman historian Suetonius, in De vita Caesarum, tells that Augustus deplored rashness in a military commander and so "festina lente" was one of his favourite sayings:
Delete"He thought nothing less becoming in a well-trained leader than haste and rashness, and, accordingly, favourite sayings of his were: "Make haste slowly"; "Better a safe commander than a bold"; and "That is done quickly enough which is done well enough."
Much better advice for a President, methinks, than "When you don't know what to do, do something."
--Alan
Boy, do I have an attitude this morning!
ReplyDeleteI wonder if it would throw a big monkey wrench into the NSA e-mail spying program if enough people started including randomized text strings with their e-mails... Grab a section of the Bible, the Constitution, a statistical summary or the business section of the newspaper, run it through a randomizer (free online) and splice it into one's e-mails. Toss in a header to look like an encryption key, maybe. If a billion people did that ten times a day, would that produce so much noise that it would bust their spy system? Congress would seem unlikely to make it against the law to transmit gibberish with intent to make spying difficult. A small revolutionary act, repeated on a big enough scale, can certainly become an overwhelming force
Alan, you could accomplish this in 10 minutes if you got Stephen Colbert to "suggest" it on the Colbert Report. ;-)
DeleteExcellent idea! The methodology is maturing in my mind; there are also java (operating system independent) online emulators for various electomechanical cipher devices, some quite powerful, which produce an obviously ciphered output.
Delete--Alan
Did I really just hear a US Senator say there isn't anyone on the committee who doesn't think that what Assad has done isn't atrocious?
ReplyDeleteWow! A triple negative! Or a confused mind...
Delete--Alan
It's nearly triple, but a true triple would at least work out correctly. Ha!
DeleteMy gut feeling is that this works out to a positive, but, goodness, what an awkward way of putting it!
DeletePresumed translation: Every member of the committee thinks what Assad has done is atrocious.
Why not just say that to begin with? Oh, wait! you did say a US senator was speaking. The equivalent of the Boy Scout Pledge for senators is Obfuscate, Prevaricate, obstruct.
Just want to add that I feel the biggest difference between Assad's use of chemical weapons and most other uses of it, is that it was used indiscriminately on children as well as adults.
ReplyDeleteJust like the usual case with conventional bombs, I'm afraid. My bet is that if anyone holds Assad to account it will be the people of his own country. But he could cheat the hangman.
Delete--Alan
Actually, Alan, the people of Syria have greater concerns than Assad. Deaniac Liane posted this link for me tonight:
Deletehttp://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2013/0901/As-US-weighs-war-fears-of-power-of-jihadis-in-Syria
Just ordered The Waltons, season four and The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. Does this mean I have a split personality?
ReplyDeleteRe Hitchhiker--the recent movie version or the BBC TV version? They're both good, and both quite different.
Delete--Alan
The movie version. Saw it in New York with Edwin. Then with him on HBO. Have also seen some of the TV episodes. The books were a "gift" from my eldest, long ago.
DeleteYou sound like good people to me, puddle! :-)
DeleteSeeing the picture I realize I've had sedum in my front flower bed for years without knowing what it was. I guess I sedum, but I didn't knowum.
ReplyDeleteSusan! My cousin wrote the same thing when she saw a similar photo which I posted on FB today. :-)
ReplyDeleteHere's a funny for you, Cat! :-)
ReplyDeletehttps://sphotos-b-lga.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn2/1238904_648789025140091_1213610772_n.jpg
D'y'know what's bothering me in the back of my mind as I hear all the latest rhetoric about Syria? It seems to me the talk has turned to what a bad leader President Obama is and it's been days since I heard anyone comment on what a bad leader President Assad is.
ReplyDeleteI wonder if to some extent people so don't want to face the reality, that Assad has done atrocities, that they are pointing the finger at the messenger.
ReplyDeleteI do not agree with the use of violence. I just wish there were a simple way to disarm Assad. All I can come up with is for the world to band together and arrest him for war crimes. Take him out of commission.
Does anyone know who would be next in command who would then take his place?
This is from a year and a half ago. Not reassuring. http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/27/us-no-clear-successor-idUSTRE81Q0IO20120227
DeleteI keep coming back to this:
ReplyDeleteWe need to bring the most intelligent and creative minds together...Barack Obama, Desmond Tutu, the Dalai Lama, a general or two, and definitely the best diplomats in the world. What might they come up with if they got together to think outside the box?
You forgot the Pope. And I would personally ditch the generals.
ReplyDelete