Quote:
Originally Posted by Skybird
 Ohhhh yesss...
Not that it stops them trying nevertheless... |
Each action has a reaction. I'd say that there's more to this strike proposal than the morals that have been presented to the international community and their public. Whilst I think we can all agree, more or less, that the use of chemical weapons is a terrible thing, no matter who uses them, supplies them, or makes them, I do find it hard to believe the reasoning is purely based around a moral standpoint for reasons that have already been mentioned.
However, the argument that binds hands due to history is a hard one to make function in this bipolarised world, because of the self-interest of nations. Whilst, again morally, it would be a good world that had all nations turn their swords into plough-shares, all of us here know that this is something that is not likely to happen, it's human nature. So where does that leave us? With selective deafness and memory, due to necessity.
At its most base level, this mission is a show of American force, a fireworks display over Damascus, a message in multi-million dollar hardware that chemical weapons are bad, m'kay. No other nation in the world (except France, who is hoping for a Sarkozy/Libya poll ratings effect) wants to send this message, even Obama doesn't really want to send this message, he's not deaf, he can see that most of the populace doesn't want to strike Syria, and that's one of the reasons he threw it at Congress, to share the blame if and when this happens. I do not think that he will act without Congressional approval, not publically anyway, special forces might get sent instead of missiles, and maybe a drone or two might creep around Syrian airspace, but he won't act without Congress, because it would be shooting a hole in the carefully crafted boat that he's made out of the red line fiasco.
At the moment, no matter what Congress decides, Obama sheds some of the blame. If Congress says yes, then the blame is shared equally between Obama and the Congresspeople that voted in favour. If Congress says no, and another gas attack occurs, then Obama can go ahead with the mission anyway, and blame Congress for putting politics ahead of people. Either way the Republicans end up being painted in a bad light. If he goes ahead and bombs Syria after Congress voted no and before the next chemical attack then he basically paints himself as a warmonger who doesn't listen to Congress, and whilst that's what many people may think of him already, he doesn't want to write that in stone.
So it really comes down to Congress, and if American people on here want one thing or another from this vote, then I urge them to do as August has done and write to their senator. It might not affect their actions one way or another, but at least you tried, and at the end of the day what did it cost you? Internet usage, a postage stamp, the worst thing he or she could do with it (or their secretary as is more likely) is throw it in the bin.
I think Cameron made the right move to put it to Parliament, even if he didn't get the vote he expected and threw a small tantrum in the process, but by sticking by the decision of Parliament he will likely pick up some votes from people disillusioned by the Blair wars, and the current Labour civil war, it may not do much for him internationally, but it's done him some good domestically. Until the next crisis anyway.
Politics, as we all know, be it domestic or international, is rarely about acting in the interest of others, there is usually always a catch somewhere along the line, always a hidden meaning behind an action.
I personally don't think it's oil related, in regards to Syria, but it might be related to sending a message to another nation, be it Russia or Saudi Arabia. We shall see, after all there's absolutely sod all (us non-Americans anyway) can do until the outcome of the US Senates vote, which I will be hoping to catch live when it takes place later this week, presumably any time after Wednesday, having listened to most of our Parliaments debate on it, I hope to catch as much as I can of the US Congress debate, to compare our political systems.
Until then, no matter how much we chase each other in circles on this thread about the morality, effectiveness or ethics of launching a military strike on Syria, we will be no closer to a definitive answer since we are not the ones making the decision.
