British Parliament votes against military action in Syria

[anthriel]

Holby!

Generally I stay out of discussions like this. Just wanted to sneak in here for a minute to say that I agree with you, my friend, as I generally always do when it comes to things like this.

Missed you.

[River]

As someone with ties to Belgrade and deep concerns about the Syria situation, this made me laugh. Hard. So I'll share it, because it's the Onion and the Onion is always appropriate.

Obama Assures Americans This Will Not Be Another 1456 Ottoman Siege Of Belgrade

WASHINGTON—As fierce debate continued this week over a proposed military strike on Syria, President Obama stressed to all Americans Monday that any U.S. involvement in the Middle Eastern country would not in any way mirror the 1456 Ottoman Siege of Belgrade.

“I of course realize that many people around the country are concerned that an intervention in Syria would devolve into another Siege of Belgrade, but I can assure you that this operation will be swift, decisive, and will in no way resemble the Ottoman Empire’s ill-advised invasion of Nándorfehérvár,” Obama told the assembled White House Press Corps. “Our mission in Syria is fundamentally different from that of the Ottomans 550 years ago—there will be absolutely no boots on the ground, the attacks will only last for two or three days at the most, and we will, under no circumstances, be deploying a fleet of 200 galleys and 300 cannons.”

“I can promise you this: My administration and I will not repeat the mistakes of Sultan Mehmed II,” Obama continued. “Believe me, we have all learned the lessons from the campaign to subjugate the Kingdom of Hungary following the fall of Constantinople.”

Obama was reportedly adamant that the United States is not acting on poor or shortsighted intelligence, unlike the 15th-century Turks who underestimated the difficulty in quelling Belgrade’s peasant army. The president also claimed that the current situation in Syria, when closely examined, “barely resembles the fight against St. John of Capistrano and his crusaders when they breached the Ottoman camp.”

Despite the White House’s claims that an American intervention in Syria would, if anything, most likely resemble the Ottoman Empire’s successful 1521 Siege of Belgrade under Sultan Suleiman I, many remained skeptical this week that a U.S. military effort in Syria would not ultimately result in a military disaster on the scale of the 1456 campaign, which left extensive casualties of over 10,000 Hungarians and 50,000 Ottoman soldiers.

[Primula Baggins]

Brilliant, River!

But I too sneaked in to say hello to a certain grandpa who has been FAR!!!! TOO!!!! SCARCE!!!!! lately, she said casually.

But I love him anyway. Funny that.

I have to say, this summation of the current situation, from Assad himself via the Onion, seemed pretty comprehensive to me. Language warning.

[yovargas]

I like River's Onion link better.

[Primula Baggins]

This morning my Congressman, Peter DeFazio, tweeted the tally on calls to his office about attacking Syria: 18 for, 1135 against. This isn't as dead obvious as it sounds; a lot of this district is rural and conservative. This time around, people are reading the fine print.

I remember the blind march to war in late 2002 and 2003, with the big media outlets beating the drum and anyone who objected ignored or accused of being a terrorist sympathizer. While I don't think Obama wants that kind of war, with that kind of blind groupthink going on it might have happened in spite of him. I'm glad it's not happening this time.

[tinwë]

For the record, I support some sort of intervention, at least in theory, in response to the use of chemical weapons. There is in fact a global ban on the use of chemical weapons although Syria is one of the few nations that are not a signatory to it. I do, however, feel very strongly that the goal of any action on our part should be nothing more than to interrupt, preferably to eliminate, the ability of anyone on either side from carrying out any further chemical weapons attacks.

I agree with Holby that nothing we can do will stop the killing in Syria. I am particularly incensed at the attempts of those in the US trying to "sell" this action to the American people by portraying it in the simplistic terms of "rebels good, dictator bad". We know it isn't as simple as that. In fact there seems to be no good outcome for any of this, which is why any response from us should be limited to the weapons themselves and nothing more. If that by necessity causes more harm to the Assad regime, well too bad for him.

As for the specific type of response, that I do not know. Bombing stockpiles of chemical weapons doesn't seem like a particularly good idea. "Boots on the ground" is apparently out, meaning no way to go in and physically remove the weapons. Maybe a targeted strike against the missle systems used to deliver the weapons? I'm not the expert so how would I know. If, however it is simply about a punitive strike because sure, that's what's called for, then I am firmly with the rest of the world in denouncing this as needless and reckless aggression.

Oh, and Holby, very nice to see you. I may have a stale muffin around here somewhere if you want it.

[tinwë]

It appears that world leaders read my post and are now focusing on surrendering and destroying the weapons themselves as a means of avoiding a military attack.

Kerry: Syrian surrender of chemical arms could stop U.S. attack

Russia suggests Syria surrender chemical weapons to avoid attack

Syria welcomes Russian proposal to surrender chemical weapons

You're welcome.

[River]

Oh please let it be so...

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I'll believe it when I see it.

And maybe not even then.

[Primula Baggins]

tinwë, I hope you put a lot of careful thought into your posts going forward. . . .

[tinwë]

Yeah, I thought the part about Holby and the muffin was particularly prescient as well.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

The president faces opposition close to (actually in) home:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/0 ... 96436.html

[Lalaith]

Any thoughts on Obama's speech? I haven't watched it yet.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I've only seen parts of it. Overall, I was impressed by it, not surprisingly, although I am still against the military strikes.

The more interesting question is what people thought of Vladimir Putin's op-ed in the New York Times.

[yovargas]

The more interesting question is what people thought of Vladimir Putin's op-ed in the New York Times.

As usual, I feel unqualified to make any serious or deep commentary but I can't help but think that these are wise words:

And I would rather disagree with a case he made on American exceptionalism, stating that the United States’ policy is “what makes America different. It’s what makes us exceptional.” It is extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivation. There are big countries and small countries, rich and poor, those with long democratic traditions and those still finding their way to democracy. Their policies differ, too. We are all different, but when we ask for the Lord’s blessings, we must not forget that God created us equal.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Those words, coming from Putin, are about the funniest thing I have ever seen.

Edited to add: to be clear, I agree with the words themselves, except for the fact that they are coming from Putin.

[yovargas]

I had that reaction much of the article....

[Voronwë the Faithful]

The other side of the coin is that one of the biggest GOP criticisms of Obama has been than he repudiates American exceptionalism, and instead has pursued a policy of world cooperation. That part of the speech was a (doomed to fail) attempt to get those GOP critics on board.

[tinwë]

I'm not sure if he is really trying to get them on board anything anymore - surely he must know they are going to oppose him no matter what he does. I think if anything he is trying to create opportunities for others to point out the hypocrisy of his opponents. And rightly so, IMO.

As for the speech, I didn't see all of it either but I did like what I saw. I think he did a good job spelling out why it is in our national interest to respond to the use of chemical weapons. And for the record I do believe in American Exceptionalism, although I temper that belief by simultaneously believing in bloated self-righteous American egotism too. So.

As for Putin, he is clearly playing a game, and although he may be talking it right we should all be skeptical of him.

But in the end I agree mostly with Jon Stewart who said who the hell cares who averted a war and got a country to agree to give up its chemical weapons, as long as someone averted a war and got a country to agree to give up its chemical weapons.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I repeat: I'll believe it when I see it.