9 ms·

You're right. This is all optics. Tin foil time: Obama: "How do we get attention away from Snowden?!?!" Minions: "Bomb somebody!" EDIT: I prefaced the above

by fixxer 13y ago

You're right. This is all optics. Tin foil time: Obama: "How do we get attention away from Snowden?!?!" Minions: "Bomb somebody!" EDIT: I prefaced the above with "tin foil time". In reality, this is all just about bleeding heart, spend-my-tax-dollars-to-make-the-situation-go-sideways nonsense. Is it horrible what is going on? Absolutely. Are we going to make it better? No. Do we ever?

Steko 13y ago
"Do we ever make it better?" Yes actually.
- obstacle1 13y ago
  Example of bombing making it better?
  - pyre 13y ago
    Didn't terrorism go away after Clinton sent cruise missiles into terrorist camps?
  - Steko 13y ago
    Examples, which have been widely discussed in Syria decision talk, include Libya (2011) and Kosovo (1999). Bosnia (1995) would seem to qualify. 90's Gulf war and subsequent events have some relevance. I'm not saying I'm unquestionably in favor of bombing Syria. But I am in favor of intellectual honesty and to claim that Syria (2013) would be Iraq/Afghanistan seems outrageous. Jonathan Chait put it best: Syria Isn’t Iraq. Everything Isn’t Iraq. http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/08/syria-isnt-iraq-everything-isnt-iraq.html http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/08/syria-isnt-iraq... http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/frame_game/2013/08/syria_air_war_what_we_can_learn_from_kosovo_libya_and_the_persian_gulf_war.html http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/frame_game/2...
- fixxer 13y ago
  Example of bombing without iota of legal justification making it better?
  - foobarbazqux 13y ago
    Since at the most base level the use of force is necessary to create laws, bombing is its own legal justification. We're making an international law that says don't use chemical weapons, although the amount of force probably won't be high enough to make it clear how serious an offense it is, meaning that it will probably do not much. Then again it appears slightly better than letting the use of chemical weapons slide.
    - csharpminor 13y ago
      1. Laws are a system of agreements that a community agrees to. The "law" created by this action will be weakened because it is the outcome of political circumstance, not a defined and objective system. 2. Intervention by the U.S. may backfire by incentivizing dictators to stockpile chemical weapons. One of the major reasons that a boots-on-the-ground invasion is not an option is the presence of these weapons.
      - foobarbazqux 13y ago
        1. Dictators can make laws without the agreement of a community; enfranchisement is not required for lawmaking. The only thing that establishes a law is the use of force as a punishment for breaking it. There is no other condition, although other things may be involved in the process. 2. I have no real idea whether the outcome of this will be good or bad, it seems like it could go either way. I'm mostly just clarifying that the words law and force go hand in hand; this is neither good nor bad, it just is.
      - mpyne 13y ago
        Hate to say it, but international "law" has as much actual basis as the scare quotes I give it. Much of it is built more on custom than on ironclad stricture, and the parts that are very strict the U.S. has never bothered to ratify, so claiming that the U.S. must comply with Russia's demands makes as much sense as saying that Minnesota should enforce Saskatchewan's legal code. The Kosovo bombings in the late 90s were also not sanctioned by the U.N. and yet the world didn't fall apart then (and in fact, can be argued that it was indeed instrumental to bringing peace). And really, it's hard to argue that there's ever a persuasive strictly legal basis to employ the use of force against nations in a role other than self-defense, which has very interesting corollaries of its own. For example, was the U.K.'s and France's opposition to Germany's war in Poland even legally just? Especially in the U.K.'s case, they almost certainly could have made a separate peace with Hitler but chose to declare a state of war for some other nation entirely. Don't talk about treaty obligations either, they certainly demonstrated they were willing to part ways with that given their treatment of Czechoslovakia. As for your second point, it's pretty apparent that dictators are already incentivized to stockpile chemical weapons. Dictators have had (and used) chemical weapons for war for decades and if anything, should be more incentivized to use them after seeing the tepid world response to thousands of non-combatant fatalities in Syria.
lobotryas 13y ago
Seems to have worked for Clinton: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Iraq_(1998)#Distraction_from_Clinton_impeachment_scandal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Iraq_(1998)#Distract...

by fixxer 13y ago

Steko 13y ago

"Do we ever make it better?" Yes actually.

obstacle1 13y ago
Example of bombing making it better?
- pyre 13y ago
  Didn't terrorism go away after Clinton sent cruise missiles into terrorist camps?
- Steko 13y ago
  Examples, which have been widely discussed in Syria decision talk, include Libya (2011) and Kosovo (1999). Bosnia (1995) would seem to qualify. 90's Gulf war and subsequent events have some relevance. I'm not saying I'm unquestionably in favor of bombing Syria. But I am in favor of intellectual honesty and to claim that Syria (2013) would be Iraq/Afghanistan seems outrageous. Jonathan Chait put it best: Syria Isn’t Iraq. Everything Isn’t Iraq. http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/08/syria-isnt-iraq-everything-isnt-iraq.html http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/08/syria-isnt-iraq... http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/frame_game/2013/08/syria_air_war_what_we_can_learn_from_kosovo_libya_and_the_persian_gulf_war.html http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/frame_game/2...
fixxer 13y ago
Example of bombing without iota of legal justification making it better?
- foobarbazqux 13y ago
  Since at the most base level the use of force is necessary to create laws, bombing is its own legal justification. We're making an international law that says don't use chemical weapons, although the amount of force probably won't be high enough to make it clear how serious an offense it is, meaning that it will probably do not much. Then again it appears slightly better than letting the use of chemical weapons slide.
  - csharpminor 13y ago
    1. Laws are a system of agreements that a community agrees to. The "law" created by this action will be weakened because it is the outcome of political circumstance, not a defined and objective system. 2. Intervention by the U.S. may backfire by incentivizing dictators to stockpile chemical weapons. One of the major reasons that a boots-on-the-ground invasion is not an option is the presence of these weapons.
    - foobarbazqux 13y ago
      1. Dictators can make laws without the agreement of a community; enfranchisement is not required for lawmaking. The only thing that establishes a law is the use of force as a punishment for breaking it. There is no other condition, although other things may be involved in the process. 2. I have no real idea whether the outcome of this will be good or bad, it seems like it could go either way. I'm mostly just clarifying that the words law and force go hand in hand; this is neither good nor bad, it just is.
    - mpyne 13y ago
      Hate to say it, but international "law" has as much actual basis as the scare quotes I give it. Much of it is built more on custom than on ironclad stricture, and the parts that are very strict the U.S. has never bothered to ratify, so claiming that the U.S. must comply with Russia's demands makes as much sense as saying that Minnesota should enforce Saskatchewan's legal code. The Kosovo bombings in the late 90s were also not sanctioned by the U.N. and yet the world didn't fall apart then (and in fact, can be argued that it was indeed instrumental to bringing peace). And really, it's hard to argue that there's ever a persuasive strictly legal basis to employ the use of force against nations in a role other than self-defense, which has very interesting corollaries of its own. For example, was the U.K.'s and France's opposition to Germany's war in Poland even legally just? Especially in the U.K.'s case, they almost certainly could have made a separate peace with Hitler but chose to declare a state of war for some other nation entirely. Don't talk about treaty obligations either, they certainly demonstrated they were willing to part ways with that given their treatment of Czechoslovakia. As for your second point, it's pretty apparent that dictators are already incentivized to stockpile chemical weapons. Dictators have had (and used) chemical weapons for war for decades and if anything, should be more incentivized to use them after seeing the tepid world response to thousands of non-combatant fatalities in Syria.

lobotryas 13y ago

Seems to have worked for Clinton: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Iraq_(1998)#Distraction_from_Clinton_impeachment_scandal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Iraq_(1998)#Distract...