So what is your red line? If Iran used a nuke and killed 1 million of it's own people

[Pretzel_Warrior]

Would you consider that an "internal matter" and not rising to the level of needing an international military response?

Let me remind you that bin Laden laughed about the American paper tiger because of Clinton's feeble responses to USS Cole, Khobar Towers bombings, and embassy bombings.

That emboldened them to plan and pull off 9/11.

To set a precedent of nonresponse to chemical weapons usage as many of you are suggesting just sounds like international lunacy.

[hobbit709]

1. since you want to be so gung ho maybe you should quit fighting pretzels and sign up for real war.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

3. Thankyou for evading the question

[cali]

9. Let me make this clear: your question is ludicrous.

It's not even remotely a real world scenario.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

12. Ok . Use any current nuclear nation. It could be N. Korea.

[dairydog91]

25. Then you do nothing.

First, the U.S. is not that brave, and it will avoid a nuclear exchange if possible.

Second, if the government nukes its own city and is not overthrown by its own citizens, then it must enjoy extreme popularity with the citizenry. What's your proposed solution then? Exterminate the civilian supporters of the nuclear strike?

[Pretzel_Warrior]

43. A genuine thank you for ACTUALLY taking a stab at answering

[Bluenorthwest]

59. But you failed to answer that posters very good quesitions. No genuine thanks to you for evasive

word games.

[Luminous Animal]

124. It's a good question. If you are willing to promote killing are your willing

to die.

[Vinnie From Indy]

2. Why would they do that?

What if monkeys flew out of my ass and started devouring the Midwest?

[Pretzel_Warrior]

5. Thank you for evading the question

[eridani]

4. The Iranian government couldn't do that without nuking themselves as well

The only effect of Iran having nuclear weapons is that it will be harder for the US and Israel to attack it, which is a good thing, IMO. Any first use by Iran would result in the whole place becoming a radioactive parking lot.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

8. So you are saying an isolated nuclear event in one city would wipe out the whole country?

Or you believe the international response should and would be nuclear retaliation against Iran?

[eridani]

16. Where do you come up with such nonsense?

The notion of a country mounting any kind of military attack within its own borders is ridiculous, unless that country happens to be involved in a civil war. No such thing is even plausible in the case of Iran. If Iran used nuclear weapons on any other country, it would get incinerated. Opposition to the ayatollahs has nothing resembling a geographic base--it is spread throughout the country.

The US MIC is pretty evil, but even they wouldn't nuke a US city.

[Bluenorthwest]

61. I remember when Hillary said that if Iran nuked another country we'd obliterate them

and back then the Obama crowd called her a 'monster' and ran around shouting how awful it was to say we'd respond harshly if they nuked another nation. That worm sure has turned.

[treestar]

89. A good thing?

They never shut up about attacking Israel. Their government is as repressive as it gets.

[Safetykitten]

6. Do you need the address to a local Military/Industrial complex citizen intake/freedom center?

[Pretzel_Warrior]

10. Thank you for evading an answer to my question

[cali]

7. oh fer fuck's sake. do you ever think anything through? Ever?

[Pretzel_Warrior]

11. Thank you for the insult and for evading an answer to my question

[jessie04]

17. Why ??... Just Why??

nt

[cali]

52. it's a patently absurd scenario that doesn't exist in the real world. that's why

[oberliner]

98. What about just the first part?

What is your "red line"?

Is there something that a country could do that would warrant outside military intervention?

[Boom Sound 416]

13. Russia and china sold them the stuff

The blood would be on their hands


Your example is unrelated as those attacks were against Americans not Iranians

[Pretzel_Warrior]

15. Regardless of blame, what action should be taken if a country were to nuke it's own citizens?

[Boom Sound 416]

40. That's fairly different question than your OP

You specifically used Iran.

Since their are only 7 nuke powers (if memory serves) it will not likely happen by a government onto its people.

More likely a dissident group. Which is basically the war we have.

[MNBrewer]

18. What do you propose the US of A do to Iran in that case?

[dairydog91]

20. Go to war with a visibly insane regime that has nuclear weapons, apparently.

[JVS]

102. One would think that rational people would be less eager to go to war with a country that has nukes.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

21. The question was directed at you. Thanks for evading it with a question

[dairydog91]

29. Well, the original question was a ludicrous hypothetical.

No country has ever nuked one of its own cities. Iran is certainly not about to do it. Why come up with solutions for a scenario that won't occur?

[MNBrewer]

34. You're evading the question yourself

Why should anyone take the time to answer your question when you won't even answer it?

[Pretzel_Warrior]

42. Ok Einstein. Because I 've already gone on record about my belief re: Syria and chem weapons

So this would be a question directed at people who feel no red line has nee crossed. Just trying to figure out where people come in with a more catastrophic genocide but one involving a country and it's own citizens.

I note how difficult it is for anyone to take a stab at answering the question though a couple have now.

[MNBrewer]

46. Thanks for evading your actual question, Don Rickles

What should the USA do if IRAN used a NUCLEAR WEAPON on ITS OWN PEOPLE?

THAT question, the one you keep hectoring people to answer. Answer it yourself, Don.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

54. I think the U.S. And allies should use significant conventional force to take out the Iranian leader

And set up triage to help the victims and in general start over with that country. No government can be considered legitimate when it engages in mass killing of it's own citizens.

Now your turn. I won't hold my breath.

[MNBrewer]

60. I think the US should work with the UN Security Council to determine what should be done

and abide by the decision regardless of what it is, including doing NOTHING of a military nature.

Now back to your option:

What if nobody wants to go along with us in this adventure?
Go it alone?
Take out which Iranian leader; the Supreme Leader, the President, both?
How many boots on the ground?
Does the US write the new constitution for Iran or do we allow the current constitution of the Islamic Republic to remain in place, but suspended until such time as our troops leave?
Exactly how many flowers will be needed for the grateful Iranians to toss to our soldiers during the victory parade to Azadi square?
If the flowers are from Israel will that be a problem?
Will we be raising taxes on the wealthy in order to pay for this adventure, or cutting food stamps and Head Start?

[treestar]

92. So we should do nothing right?

Have you admitted that?

From which it follows we should face no more critics for the nukes we dropped on Japan.

Whoever uses nukes wins.

[treestar]

90. Does it cross your red line.

You don't want to answer that. So the OP answers and you argue with that. This evading the question.

[enlightenment]

74. Perhaps because your

hypothetical question bears little similarity to the reality of Syria and chemical weapons.

A nuclear strike, of a size that would "kill a million" is so massive that the impact would immediately extend beyond the borders of said nation. That negates your question, because it would no longer be "involving a country and it's [sic] own citizens".

You are proposing that people give you the answer you want - not the answers you are getting - and you're arguing apples and oranges. Many have pointed that out and you persist with the "you're evading my question."

There is nothing clever or cutting about what you are trying to do here. Just silliness.

[Vinnie From Indy]

19. A response worthy of your OP

[Pretzel_Warrior]

22. And once again thanks for not answering the question

[Vinnie From Indy]

23. You gotta admit though...that is one funny video!

Cheers!

[geek tragedy]

24. What they do to their own is relatively unimportant

compared to their actions towards us.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

27. So......do nothing?

[geek tragedy]

79. Yep. The Sunnis will eventually

prevail, and then there will be a reckoning.

[Douglas Carpenter]

26. I might sound a bit like a fringe Democrat for saying this but I don't blame President Clinton for

September 11. And I don't agree at all with the analysis that "Clinton's response" to the USS Cole incident or the Khobar Towers bombing and the embassy bombings were feeble or that they set the state for 9/11. I think if the President who came after President Clinton had recognized the limitations of military power as President Clinton did -- the country and the world would be in far better shape today. I have a lot of criticisms of President Clinton but I don't blame him in any way, shape or form for 9/11

[Pretzel_Warrior]

30. The bipartisan 9/11 Commission directed some of the blame Clinton's way and obviously

Bush took a fair amount of blame too.

No answer to my actual question?

[MNBrewer]

38. Answer your own freaking question, then people MIGHT take you semi-seriously

[Douglas Carpenter]

49. I supported President Clinton for taking action in Bosnia and Herzegovina conflict and in Kosovo

What made those conflicts very different to the discussion of military strikes on Syria - is that there was a very clear and achievable purpose. Also, I believe in those conflicts the dangers of not acting far exceeded the dangers of acting. IN this conflict - I can't identify anything achievable in which the risk of acting does not out way the risk of not acting. I think the New Yorker satirical piece by Andy Borowitz hit the nail right on the head. OBAMA PROMISES SYRIA STRIKE WILL HAVE NO OBJECTIVE http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/borowitzreport/2013/08/obama-promises-syria-strike-will-have-no-objective.html?currentPage=all

The truth of the matter is that if we did have an objective - it would mean a military campaign extensive enough to truly weaken Assad's grip on power - If that were to happen and opposition were to take power - we would see tremendous upheaval in Syria that caused far more suffering than any attacks by the Assad regime.

So, I do believe there are occasion in which military action is the right thing to do. But, I want to see a solid and clear objective in which the dangers of carrying it out are not greater than the dangers of not carrying it out. This situation does not meet that standard. And I would also say that governments of all sorts whether democratic or totalitarian lie about war - because in war the interest of the people and the interest of the government are the most divided. Although I don't reflexively oppose all military action. If a person did - reflexively oppose all military actions of the past 60 years they would have been right 80% of the time and wrong 20% of the time. If a person reflexively supported military action they would have been wrong 80% of the time and right 20% of the time. So although one does not need be reflexive - if one is going to be reflexive - the reflexes against military action are less likely to cause more problems and make things worse. If only the U.S. had been a lot less reflexive and a lot more thoughtful in its dealing in the Middle East over the past several decades - I do believe things would be a lot better and more stable.

[Scootaloo]

28. What if Guam set the planet on fire? HUH WHAT THEN?!

[Pretzel_Warrior]

31. Thanks for the snarky response and for evading my question.

[Scootaloo]

35. Well, that happens when you ask dumb questions

People tend to not take you terribly seriously.

So. What if Guam set the planet on fire? Why not? it's at least as likely as Iran nuking a million iranians. A well-coordinated thermobaric strike across the globe by the tiny island nation no one would ever suspect. What then?

[oberliner]

99. How about just the first part of the question?

What is your "red line"?

Is there something that a country could do that would warrant outside military intervention?

[Junkdrawer]

36. That's NOT an answer. WHAT ABOUT GUAM?

What would YOU do?

[dairydog91]

53. And what would YOU do if Barack Obama married Bashar Assad? ANSWER THE QUESTION!

[Junkdrawer]

56. Check their wedding registry for the cheapest gift?

Money doesn't grow on trees.

[Vanje]

131. Hahahahahhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!

[NuclearDem]

108. What if my cat crapped anti-matter and caused Wyoming to sink into a blackhole?

[Junkdrawer]

33. I think he'll avoid that question....

I doubt he has an answer.

[treestar]

93. It is within possibility

That Iran could get and use nukes. This saying it will never happen is another form of evasion.

The question is do you have a red line? Is there anything a bad actor could do that would allow you to support a US intervention ?

[Scootaloo]

95. It's a dumb question, and mockery is the valid "answer"

1) Yes, in scientific terms, it's "within possibility." In scientific terms, it's also possible that the universe and everything in it will turn inside out right now. Okay, how about riiiiiight... NOW! Just because there's no such thing as "0% chance" doesn't mean that every cockamamie idea deserves worry.

2) It's coming from a poster who has a habit of militarist scaremongering on DU. Did you know china is executing BILLIONS of hack attempts against the US every day (oops, sorry, millions, hurr hurr hurr)? They're our enemy, and might end up with a better economy! RRRRVIIIIL!

2) Said poster also has a silly habit of just outright dismissing (evading, you might say!) explanations that don't agree with his assumptions and desires. I know both Cali and myself have explained the Syria situation to him multiple times,and he response by sticking gum in his ears and screaming the lyrics to the Oscar Meyer song. MY BOLOGNA HAS A FIRST NAME!

The "question" is actually irrelevant. Of course everyone here has standards of ethics, lines in the sand. To tie this "line" to military action however, is a fallacious argument. The two are not linked. Here, allow me to demonstrate.

Surely for you, the mass butchery of well over six million innocent people is far beyond your own "line," isn't it? The systematic destruction of entire ethnic groups, wiping them from the face of the earth in the name of national ethnic purity is unconscionable to you, as it would be to anyone else. How about the treatment of other human beings as game animals, butchering and eating them like they were livestock? Wait, what, did you think I was talking about WW2 Germany? No, I'm talking about the Democratic Republic of Congo, and the war that's been going on there since 1997. Where are all of DU's demands for the overthrow of the Kabila regime? Why aren't you or Pretzel Warrior arguing for missile strikes into Kinshasa?

Despite all the possible reasons, I'm going to be charitable, and guess that you don't call for military action against Congo, despite the barbarities happening there, because there is nothing that US military intervention could possibly do to help the situation. Ding ding ding, this is the exact same problem facing us in Syria. Everyone around here agrees, there are horrible fucking things happening in Syria. Unconscionable things, and not just from the Syrian government's side of the field. But throwing US missiles into the mix is like throwing a cup of water at a huge grease fire. Ineffective and real potential to make it even worse.

Two years ago, when Assad starting chopping up his people for the "crime" of protesting his government, we could have done something then. What did we do? This;

“No,” Clinton said when asked on the CBS program “Face the Nation” if the U.S. would intervene in Syria’s unrest. Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad’s security forces clashed with protesters in several cities over the weekend after his promises of freedoms and pay increases failed to prevent dissent from spreading across the country.

Clinton said the elements that led to intervention in Libya -- international condemnation, an Arab League call for action, a United Nations Security Council resolution -- are “not going to happen” with Syria, in part because members of the U.S. Congress from both parties say they believe Assad is “a reformer.”

“What’s been happening there the last few weeks is deeply concerning, but there’s a difference between calling out aircraft and indiscriminately strafing and bombing your own cities,” Clinton said, referring to Qaddafi’s attacks on the Libyan people, “than police actions which, frankly, have exceeded the use of force that any of us would want to see.”
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-27/u-s-won-t-intervene-in-syria-unrest-clinton-says-on-cbs.html

But now that US intervention has exactly zero chance of making things better, suddenly we're all for it?

Yeah, the butchery in Syria is horrifying. And you know what, I wish there were some way we could make a positive impact there, to stop it, to save people, to end the chaos. But there isn't.

[treestar]

109. It is not a dumb question

It deserves some thought.

[NuclearDem]

104. Well, I don't want to set the worrrrlldddd onnnn fiiirrreeee

[alphafemale]

137. What then? Hmmm? HHMMMM? lmao

You just gave me a weird flash black.

Yeah. I'm mad. I'm the maddest damn cow you've ever seen.

[MNBrewer]

32. Here is my "red line"

http://therussianreader.wordpress.com/tag/russian-anti-gay-law/

We must immediately launch a military strike against the evil dictator Vladimir Putin for using draconian anti-gay laws AGAINST HIS OWN PEOPLE.

*note: I really DO consider Putin to be equally as evil as Assad, but Putin is dangerous to far more people*

http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.1386388!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_635/aptopix-russia-gay-rights.jpg

[DCBob]

37. In a case like that the entire world would be stunned and in agreement on what to do.

[onehandle]

39. Any military nuclear attack would be suicide by the attackers.

The world's nuclear powers are set up for a fast, nearly automatic response.

That country would be vaporized and we could only pray that the domino effect doesn't follow and destroy us all.

[99Forever]

41. I dunno...

... "what if" monkeys flew out of your butt?

Making matters worse with a stupid kneejerk reaction, isn't an option for me. I've seen that movie and how many hundreds of thousands it killed and we are still paying the price financially for the last fucked up, militaristic, bonehead "humanitarian" invasions.

No thanks, but feel free to jump on a plane and go over there and fix things yourself.

Oh, and do it on your own dime.

[HereSince1628]

44. Should a debate on red lines be hidden under the spector of speculative mushroom clouds?

Seems to me this tactic of escalating speculative rhetoric actually diverts attention from the fundamental question of the necessity of having red lines regarding intervention in crises in other countries.

It also demonstrates how some advocates believe that people's attitudes can be shifted by modifying the magnitude of the horror factor fictional situations, and the perceived utility of arguments like this in support of jingoistic psy-ops on the citizenry.

And even IF it is accepted that some level of atrocity warrants intervention, the world is stuck with trusting the intelligence of some nation's surveillance about the existence of such atrocity. What level of credibility must be reached to convince a nation that its people should support military intervention.

Surely you realize that the spector of mushroom cloud reminds the nation, and the world, of Bush Admin lies to the world. That memory works against credibility.

[Boom Sound 416]

45. Pick on some one your own size

Last edited Sat Aug 31, 2013, 09:41 AM - Edit history (1)

Your example is lame. Tiny country relatively with little air and sea power.

How about if Russia or china nuked its own people. Countries with thousands of ICBM's and millions in infantry.

Will you be leading the charge for the US to go Heroshima on Bejing

[Little Star]

47. I think we should go straight to war if they did that......

In fact we should go straight to war with every country we deem necessary & go it alone if need be also.

War, what is it good for? Absolutely EVERYTHING!

USA, USA, USA

[HooptieWagon]

48. You're naive to think Syria is about a gas attack.

US government is more than willing to overlook chemical weapons use, hell we do it too.

No, Syria is all about a gas pipeline. Saudi Arabia wants to pipe Middle East gas to Europe, where Russia currently has a monopoly supplying natural gas. Syria is the ideal location for the pipeline. Which is why Saudis are supporting the rebels, and Russia is supporting Assad.
If you think involvement in Syria is about a chemical weapons attack, the you were probably gullible enough to believe Iraq invasion was about bringing freedumb to Iraqis.

[Ed Suspicious]

57. Yes. +2

[cali]

50. bwahahah. the emptiest, most ridiculous, manipulative, lame speculation on DU EVER.

Good job, pal.

Congrats on reaching such depths.

[cynatnite]

72. Not to mention factually incorrect. n/t

[dkf]

106. Hahahaha. I had to lol too.

Still chuckling.

[Waiting For Everyman]

51. My red line is when there is a groundswell of international consensus

urging us to do something in coalition with a good number of significant others, then we CONSIDER it in a limited strategic way. (Similar to the Libya situation a few years ago.)

[malaise]

55. Maybe just maybe someone should have used that red line

when Japan was being nuked. Then we might not be in this mess today

[whatchamacallit]

58. What if the US did it?

Last edited Sun Sep 1, 2013, 12:30 AM - Edit history (1)

As the only nation to ever nuke a civilian population (twice), wouldn't we be a more appropriate subject for your inane hypothetical?

[Democracyinkind]

62. My red line: Democrats fullfilling the PNAC wet dream. NT

[AzDar]

65. +1

[FarCenter]

63. About a million were killed during the Chinese Cultural Revolution and we did nothing.

The attack on the Cole and the embassies were attacks on US target. Khobar Towers was probably the same -- US personnel may have been living there.

But if a country kills its own citizens, we have no duty to intervene, and have not in the past.

[Bluenorthwest]

64. This thread prompted me to look at the threads from when Hillary said we'd obliterate Iran if

they nuked Israel or another country. It is interesting because the same crowd that now asks questions like the one in this OP and supports any and all action against Syria thought she was terrible, a 'monster' and 'warmonger'. The hypocrisy is profound and when one is hypocritical about issues of war and peace and life and death one is an unredeemable hypocrite, simply approving of any position they wish to hold at any given time.
Samantha Power called Hillary a 'monster' and now Power is leading the hawks, can't wait to bomb in the middle east.....

[hootinholler]

66. Shady Grove to Silver Spring

That's my Red Line.

[Warpy]

67. My red line is slippery slopers

A lot of mischief in this world is created by people who sacrifice their own liberty in the name of safety from something which will never happen.

Knock it off.

[LostOne4Ever]

68. I would not set a red line period.

Red lines are too simplistic.

It ignores the variety of issues involved and possible outcomes and consequences. What will happen if we go in? How can we make the situation better or how can we accidentally make the situations worse. What other countries will be affected and how will they respond? Will this make us safe in the long run? How about the short run? What will we need to do afterwards? How does this compare with traditional weapons? Are there other similar situations around the world going on? Worse ones?

The example you gave is in particular is a situation where not rushing in like a bull in china factory would be a good idea lest we set the world on fire. How many nukes do they have? Where are they? Can we get them without klling millions of innocents? Will they use the nukes on their neighbors or our allies if we go in? IMPORTANT questions. Discretion is the better part of Valor for a reason.

Who gives a shit about what AQ or any other group thinks about our actions? We need to do what is right for us.

As for the chemical attack we are still waiting on the details. Who did it and why? How will they and others respond to us attacking? How about how they will respond to us not attacking? Further, over 100k people have been killed in that war by traditional weapons. Why the sudden outrage?

A million questions like this are filling my head. I don't like making life and death decisions based from a situation of ignorance. Furthermore, I am vehemently against war and violence especially when we have not even come close to considering and trying peaceful means to stop the death there. Violence should be a very last resort.

Does this answer your question to your satisfaction?

[Deep13]

69. The "red line" is there has to be something positive the USA can do.

Yes, there is great need to deter the use of N.B.C. weapons. That does not mean the U.S. government has the ability to do that, or if they do, that it will be more good than harm.

BTW, your hypothetical is idiotic. Iran could conceivably nuke Israel of America if they were able to deliver it, but they would never nuke one of their own cities.

[BlueToTheBone]

70. If Iran used a nuke and bombed

1 million of our people. THen we would be justified.

[cynatnite]

71. You should do some fact checking first...

Clinton was out of office when the investigation was completed and they knew who did it. bush was in office and he's the one with the feeble response.

The Khobar Towers...they did catch and convict those who were directly responsible. There was evidence Iran was behind it.

The embassy bombings...bush's feeble response again.

[Savannahmann]

73. Perhaps if an intelligent plan was put forth, our opposition might change.

Because right now, the plan is to bomb the Syrian people because Assad used Chemical Weapons on the Syrian People. We aren't going for Regime Change, so there will be no attack on Assad personally. In other words we're talking about punishing the people that he is punishing for revolting against his authority.

If that paragraph above makes no sense, neither does any of the reported plans. We have no goal, and no action that we are even considering taking that gets even close to one. We can't bomb the chemical weapons themselves, that would release them and wipe out more people than have been killed so far. We can't bomb Assad, President Obama has ruled out Regime Change.

If we did bomb Assad, we would be helping groups that are aligned with terrorists who hate us and have been killing us for the last twelve years.

Right now, I don't see an intelligent well thought out plan, or a goal that makes any kind of sense. Right now, I see a parent who is furious that their child disobeyed. We aren't thinking, and we should never support actions based on emotions when lives are at stake, not just American, but any life.

I have not mentioned the opposition to our proposed actions by the Russians and Chinese. Have we come up with a way to address that? Right now, we seem to be operating under the "They wouldn't dare" frame of mind which could be worse, but I'm not sure how.

I am in opposition because there isn't a plan. There isn't a goal, or a strategic point in which we declare victory. We risk becoming the pariah of the world, hated and opposed by everyone.

[NuclearDem]

75. Oh, bless your heart.

You really did buy into the neocon black-and-white view of the world, didn't you?

[Douglas Carpenter]

82. blaming President Clinton's "weakness" for 9/11 is pretty far out to find on a Democratic forum

[Arctic Dave]

76. RED LINE!!!! RED LINE !!!! RED LINE!!!!

[bemildred]

77. "Red lines" are for morons, that's what I think of red lines. nt

[Bluenorthwest]

78. The Cole was attacked when Clinton had less than 3 months left in office....

but don't let actual history get in the way of your day tripping.....

[tjwash]

80. If Iran used a nuke on its own people...

...the US, Russia, China, Japan, S-Korea Every EU country, Hell, just about EVERY country in the world would unite for a response. Well - with the exception of the tea-party congress if Obama was still the CIC.

But that is not going to happen, because Iran does not have nuclear arms capability. It does make for a good fantasy thread and a completely thorough troll job though.

[Rex]

81. What a bunch of made up assumptions.

Keep working on that transparency page!

[Harmony Blue]

83. My red line is

reaching the center of the tootsie pop. Game over.

[DirkGently]

84. Hundreds of civilians & children murdered in drone strikes?

2) The Bureau of Investigative Journalism estimates the following cumulative statistics about US drone strikes:[3]
(As of July 2013)
Total strikes: 370
Total reported killed: 2,548 - 3,549
Civilians reported killed: 411 - 890
Children reported killed: 168 - 197
Total reported injured: 1,177 - 1,480
Strikes under the Bush Administration: 52
Strikes under the Obama Administration: 318

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drone_attacks_in_Pakistan

How is it that the U.S. has both the duty and the right to react to one possible atrocity carried out in a conflict full,of atrocities (the rebels are accused of genocide & gang-raping Kurds, btw) while our own illegal child killings are not subject to question?

No one believes the World Police gambit this time.

[Glassunion]

85. I'm just glad other countries don't bomb the crap out of us

every time we violate human rights. Pot and kettle and all...

[HardTimes99]

86. This is a really passive-aggressive way of asking when and under what

circumstances military force is justified.

Why don't you just ask your question straight out, rather than insulting those with different opinions by calling it 'lunacy' (the 'aggressive' portion of your passive-aggressive complex).

Your understanding of the motivations behind the plans to attack on 9-11 is woefully lacking, btw, and fails to credit what OBL and his senior leadership themselves said were there reasons. (They had very little to do with America's non-response to earlier attacks.)

[treestar]

87. A question worth thinking about

And discussing without snark and smart ass slogans.

I think most would intervene then or if Iran attacked others with them.

Or is we knew of a genocide.

[meow2u3]

88. My red line is a military attack on American soil

That's how come the reaction to 9/11 was popular--until the truth came out years later.

[oberliner]

101. Really?

There is no atrocity that any leader could commit to their own people that would lead to your supporting outside military action?

[neverforget]

91. You sure are gung-ho to spill other people's blood.

[ozone_man]

94. How about five million? In the Congo.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/16/sunday-review/congos-never-ending-war.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

We don't seem to care about atrocities there. Or Rwanda 1995. I think Syria has strategic value to the U.S. and Israel and that this is what it is about.

[oberliner]

100. There are "boots on the ground" there

UN forces have been deployed to try to keep the peace.

Do you think more should be done?

[ozone_man]

127. The U.N. "boots" are not stopping it.

My point is to question why are we so interested in a civil war in Syria, which threatens us in no way, where there are 2% of the casualties that have occurred in the Congo. I think it is all about strategic importance, yes? If so, then we are hypocrites, and worse probably, as I suspect we are funding the rebels, either directly or indirectly.

[oberliner]

132. Here is an excerpt from an interview with President Obama that references that question

Excerpt:

CH: The last question is about Syria. I wonder if you can speak about how you personally, morally, wrestle with the ongoing violence there.

Every morning, I have what's called the PDB—presidential daily briefing—and our intelligence and national security teams come in here and they essentially brief me on the events of the previous day. And very rarely is there good news. And a big chunk of my day is occupied by news of war, terrorism, ethnic clashes, violence done to innocents. And what I have to constantly wrestle with is where and when can the United States intervene or act in ways that advance our national interest, advance our security, and speak to our highest ideals and sense of common humanity.

And as I wrestle with those decisions, I am more mindful probably than most of not only our incredible strengths and capabilities, but also our limitations. In a situation like Syria, I have to ask, can we make a difference in that situation? Would a military intervention have an impact? How would it affect our ability to support troops who are still in Afghanistan? What would be the aftermath of our involvement on the ground? Could it trigger even worse violence or the use of chemical weapons? What offers the best prospect of a stable post-Assad regime? And how do I weigh tens of thousands who've been killed in Syria versus the tens of thousands who are currently being killed in the Congo?

Those are not simple questions. And you process them as best you can. You make the decisions you think balance all these equities, and you hope that, at the end of your presidency, you can look back and say, I made more right calls than not and that I saved lives where I could, and that America, as best it could in a difficult, dangerous world, was, net, a force for good.

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/112190/obama-interview-2013-sit-down-president

[ozone_man]

145. But it is not tens thousand in the Congo.

"And how do I weigh tens of thousands who've been killed in Syria versus the tens of thousands who are currently being killed in the Congo?"

It is five million. So, Obama is not speaking accurately, possibly to diminish the Congo conflict. That was my point. In my opinion, the Syria involvement is not about saving innocent lives. It's about strategic interests of the U.S. and Israel, and opening up a pathway to Iran.

Also, I'm pretty sure that the rebels are equally responsible for the losses of innocent lives in Syria.

[oberliner]

146. Yes it is

Obama is speaking accurately and is not trying to diminish the Congo conflict, but rather, possibly, to draw attention to it (the interviewer did not bring it up, he did). So your point is not valid.

Also, I'm pretty sure that the rebels are equally responsible for the losses of innocent lives in DR Congo.

[ozone_man]

154. Sure he is.

In referring to numbers of deaths in the Congo he should use millions, not tens of thousands, That was my point.

He is trying to draw a parallel, but none exists, not in magnitude anyway. If this was a humanitarian mission, he would focus elsewhere. But, it is not a humanitarian mission. It is a strategic mission.

[Posteritatis]

148. Central Africa's still "shielded" by the Mogadishu Line the P5 drew in the 90s, unfortunately. (nt)

[backscatter712]

96. The red line is when the U.S. is directly threatened.

Last edited Sat Aug 31, 2013, 09:42 PM - Edit history (1)

Today, not in hypothetical land, but today's situation, we've got a tin-pot dictatorship on the other side of the planet with a third-rate military fighting a civil war, who happened to use sarin on its own citizens.

What are the odds of Assad (or the rebels...) being able to get a microgram of that sarin on U.S. territory? Next to zero.

America's national security is not at stake, despite the bloviating. What is at stake is oil futures, which is why the neocons/neolibs have got a boner for war right now. And there are countless civilians in the crossfire being terrorized by both sides, and the truth is that blowing more shit up isn't going to put an end to that.

Do we have actual moral right to open fire? No. American national security is not in danger.

[MFrohike]

97. Nice

I always enjoy people who seem to think a vote for president is a vote to bring good government to foreigners. I must keep missing that section of the constitution.

By the way, your argument is essentially that 9/11 happened because we weren't violent enough. Perhaps we should have invaded Sudan or Afghanistan in 98? I'm just curious, because that's the logical outgrowth of your argument. Clinton shot off cruise missiles, just like Obama proposes to do, so I'm curious how doing EXACTLY the same thing is somehow going to show that he's tougher than Clinton. Feel free to explain.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

103. Rather than killing them, how about imprisoning them? Would that call for a military response?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_States

According to the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), 2,266,800 adults were incarcerated in U.S. federal and state prisons, and county jails at year-end 2011 – about 0.7% of adults in the U.S. resident population.[7] Additionally, 4,814,200 adults at year-end 2011 were on probation or on parole.[11] In total, 6,977,700 adults were under correctional supervision (probation, parole, jail, or prison) in 2011 – about 2.9% of adults in the U.S. resident population.[11]

[dkf]

105. What's the purpose of bombing them if they've already nuked themselves?

I don't get it.

[ZombieHorde]

107. Bin Laden wanted us to freak out and start wars.

It was the best recruitment tool he ever had, besides religion perhaps.

The US military is incompetent, and should not be sent to invade other countries. They do seem to be pretty decent at small, assassination missions, so I might support assassinating the highest ranking government officials in some extreme situations.

[dorkulon]

110. It's become entirely clear from NK and Pakistan that we won't bother nuke-capable nations. /nt

[ecstatic]

111. My red line with caveats

Genocide BUT nuking/bombing cities like we did in WW2 is COMPLETELY UNACCEPTABLE (and racist)!!! If there is a dictator/tyrant/madman killing folks, save time and lives by killing that person (with UN approval, of course) so we can all move on with our lives.

Also, our interventions should not be limited to countries where most of the victims are white. Where was the US when it came to Rwanda? It seems like this country steps in when the victims are white/Caucasian. Even worse, the US doesn't appear to show much caution when it comes to bombing/nuking non-white countries. Our intervention policy should be race neutral.

[cherokeeprogressive]

112. Fuckin' obvious: You NUKE 'em. They've already shown a willingness to nuke their OWN country.

How do you answer that? Do you send your own military into a place where you know the government will answer with nukes?

Do you have any kids, grandkids, nieces, or nephews who need a ride to the recruiter's office or the MEPPs station? I volunteer to give them a ride Bro. Me? I served already. You?

[NuclearDem]

114. +1000

This is the kind of crap you have to deal with when people's only exposure to war is through Call of Duty. Gun/war porn without any of the discomfort.

Those of us who've lived the reality are sick and fucking tired of the bloodthirst. I've seen enough people with limbs or faces blown off, enough flag-draped coffins and shattered loved ones, and enough people lost to suicide over survivor's guilt and traumatic brain injury.

Enough is fucking enough. That we have people here excited over it and pushing for more makes me absolutely fucking sick.

[morningfog]

113. In your ridiculous hypo, the UN would sanction

A military response and our involvement would be justified, to the extent necessary.

Having said that, it is a really stupid question.

[Initech]

115. It's the military industrial complex. THEY. DO. NOT. GIVE. A. FUCK. ABOUT. THE. PEOPLE.

They only care about lining their pocketbooks. That's exactly what this is about. This is not about the people of Syria. It's about the oil and gas companies and greedy fucking military contractors.

[customerserviceguy]

116. Bin Laden was not a head of state

He wanted to see American weakness in everything, and clearly, he had no trouble finding it.

Our smart-bombing of any country over their internal affairs would make as little sense as China trying to set Washington D. C. on fire 150 years ago because of what the Lincoln Administration did to Americans in the South in the Civil War.

[Humanist_Activist]

117. Iran, population 0...

no way we would risk our troops in a nuclear war by restricting ourselves to only using conventional weapons. We wouldn't be destroying a government, but a country, and every single man, woman, and child, in that country will be dead.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

118. Thanks everyone for your answers

I know it was uncomfortable for some of you to face up to the question directly because by agreeing you have any scenario in which the U.S. is not threatened but a country is wiping out its own citizens, you'd then be faced with the notion that what we're really arguing is degrees of violence that would merit U.S. involvement.

[mick063]

119. The first country that preemptively drops a nuke on anybody

Will have the entire world aligning against them.

That includes the United States.

[Humanist_Activist]

120. As others have pointed out, we wouldn't give a shit about civilian casualties...

Iran would be a glass parking lot, with tens of millions dead, just because it used a nuclear weapon against people, doesn't really matter who.

[JesterCS]

122. alot of hate on this thread

Why not just answer the question with the best answer in your opinion, instead of bashing the OP.

[Bonobo]

123. That's a pretty low bar for what you call "hate". nt

[Alamuti Lotus]

125. Actually, my red line is when disingenuous chumps use emotional blackmail to advance their agenda

And I must say, certain people are precariously squatting on that line right now.

[B Calm]

126. The Do Nothing Congress has the ball now, will see what they'll do.

[senseandsensibility]

128. You just repeated the RW lines I heard in real time against Clinton

You must be so proud. They were idiotic then and they are idiotic now.

[NuclearDem]

129. This OP's back?

[L0oniX]

130. My red line is when they set foot on US soil. n/t

[CakeGrrl]

133. The view from this forum isn't of the big picture

It's a far narrower view.

Screw geopolitics. 'Sorry dead people, get your own government to stop gassing you. It's not America's problem. We have bigger domestic fish to fry.'

So thinking a bit ahead, I would expect some consistency when evidence of increasing numbers of dead Syrian citizens pop up on social media. I assume there will be a general shrug of the shoulders here and the sentiment that 'It's too bad, but deal with it.'

[Vattel]

134. Obviously it would depend

on the circumstances. War in your scenario could be justifiable. One would have to consider the rights of innocent bystanders in Iran and possibly elsewhere who would be killed if the US wages war in iran, the likelihood that waging war would deter further nuclear attacks, other benefits and costs that might result, their magnitude and likelihood, etc, etc.

[CakeGrrl]

136. So what makes that different than the innocent bystanders who are now dead in Syria?

[Vattel]

155. It is the same.

[LWolf]

135. My red line?

As an individual, my red line is right in front of my nose.

If someone within my physical reach to help is attacked, I will be there. I will be there with my cell phone to call 911, and my body to offer as protection. I will not carry nor use a firearm.

As a citizen of a nation, my NATIONAL red line is here:

If someone launches a physical attack on the nation, I want us to defend ourselves. Right here. I don't need to chase the attacker around the globe. I am actively opposed to compromising civil liberties at home in the name of "security." I don't need revenge, punishment, or to prove anything to anybody. I just need to end the attack.

As for the rest of the world...I am actively opposed to unilateral action anywhere. I am willing to support UN efforts to intervene to protect human rights IF:

1. Multiple diplomatic efforts and other sanctions have been vigorously pursued, supported, given time, and still failed.

2. There is global consensus on the need to use military force.

3. The U.S. is one part of a multi-national force acting under UN command.

Edited to add:

I don't believe violence is ever an appropriate tool. Because I'm human, and not a saint, I will use physical force to protect, only in the last extremities after everything else has been tried first, and only to stop harm.

To protect. Not to attack.

[alphafemale]

138. How many people are you willing to kill to prove that killing people is wrong?

You can round it to a nearest half million.

[nadinbrzezinski]

139. Once again, I will volunteer to personally

Drive you to the recruiter, or if you are not of military age, the closest relative of yours, preferably your children, who are.

You are way too eager

Stop fighting pretzels and join up for the real thing.

[pjt7]

140. My Red Line

is being on the same side as Al-Queda.

[TheKentuckian]

141. Where is yours? The real one, not the one that seems like an easy "we can do it"

How about your scenario in China or Russia? You still have that same lead in your pencil? So certain of your ability to use might to make right?

I also don't buy that an "international response" is us plus or minus token representation from random "stan" Soviet break aways and and our subsidiaries (we might even strike out there on this one).

This is no moral imperative, on the list or not we'll use just as heinous or worse and have done so fairly consistently and we have turned many a blind eye beyond wagging of the fingers in the face of grievous crimes against humanity and blatantly refuse to prosecute our own save low level fall guys.

It is bullshit dick swinging where the bully sizes up someone he can take and uses the phony moral imperative as an excuse to show how bad ass he is as long as he doesn't have to fight anyone that just might fuck him up on a given Sunday.

This one, the bully calculates will piss off the Russians (who they are in a snit with) but they do not believe quite enough to cause hot action but may be in the Goldilocks zone for pushing us into a neocold war state as to maintain and even increase the Military-Industrial-Congressional Complex command and control factor. If not, it almost has to be a solid start.
If Russia decided to rain some justice down on Israel, we might be in WWIII territory. Don't get too fucking cocky.

To answer you, if Iran had even that level of nuclear capability then I suspect our options would be either to essentially do nothing no matter how much crying or turn them into glass and damn the torpedoes. We walk a very precarious line in Pakistan but even that situation has only so much elasticity.

The arrogance and the hypocrisy are astounding. The self righteousness is towering. The cowardly, technocratic nature stunning to behold.
All the furious anger not over number, suffering, environmental damage, who was hit, who was targeted, or really anything else than "we believe a substance on a treaty you have not signed off on has been violated".
Hell, we might be using fucking depleted uranium somewhere today and we refuse to sign the land mine ban.

Whatever the real motivation, it isn't any mercy mission and it isn't some imperative against mass murder. Neither hokey ass statement is believable in context only in the haze of mythology of exceptionalism and generational propaganda woven into the very fabric of our society as a tool of control.

C'mon man, the very best story for any semblance of moral authority to jump back into the middle east for the next stop on the Crusade is that we've turned over a new leaf over the past four and a half years (despite mostly rotating the same fucking war criminals around in our military and clandestine services under the smiling face of a Nobel winner). Which means we haven't got one of any worth outside of our own borders and I hope to God one without too much fertile ground here anymore.

[grahamhgreen]

142. How 'bout if a country invaded Iraq on the pretext of WMD, and knowingly lied about it?

[grahamhgreen]

143. PS - this is similar to "don't let the smoking gun be a mushroom cloud" argument.

[RetroLounge]

144. lunacy

RL

[Posteritatis]

147. The idiotic responses to this OP aside, thinking about where the red line is is a Good Thing

Last edited Tue Sep 3, 2013, 10:31 PM - Edit history (1)

It's a question worth thinking about, save for people who don't recognize any such line at all (which I don't agree with but at least give them points for consistency when they apply it properly).

The situation you set up there is a bit of a straw man, sure, but I also think that's useful for this sort of discussion. We've got one end of the spectrum, which is somewhere between "actual peace" and "conventional war with conventional weapons and a basic respect for the surviving human decencies in combat," and at the other end we've got "uses actual nukes on their own population" or "kills and eats enemy POWs for rations" or somesuch bad-movie scenario. One end is, well, not okay, but one of the accepted results of failed conflict resolution, and the other end is almost universally considered the "time for the rolled up newspaper" interventionist approach.

So if I have a scenario where I believe that yes, it's time for other powers to intervene, with armed force, to compel one party to Stop Doing That, it doesn't matter too much for the sake of the argument if that scenario is absurd, which Iran dropping a nuclear weapon on, say, Tabriz obviously would be. What matters is that the line exists: if a country did that I think it would be time for the world community to compel them to fix their behaviour. (This is one reason the Chechen wars made me really nervous at the time, since there were mixed signals that Russia was going to nuke, or at least deliberately destroy, Grozny at one point.)

So I've got a position which I consider to be on the wrong side of that line, which means that there is such a line somewhere in my head. If I recognize that, then it means I ought to be putting some effort into figuring out where that line is, or how far I can get away from our Maximally Silly Scenario while still feeling sure I'm on the other side of it. What if they nuked Yazd, which is only a quarter or so the size, or Dorood, which is only a hundred thousand, or if it was a rebel (or invading) force that was in the field in a conventional war where a few villages happened to be in the zone?

Maybe I decide in that case that the size of the target doesn't matter as much as the use of the weapon, and put "anything nuclear" on the "dude, no" side of the line. Time to start thinking about whether it's only those, or if there's other things like biological or chemical weapons, or if there's extenuating circumstances, or if context is significant (or not), or if the precedent of action or inaction shifts the line at all. Where's a few things I consider firmly on that side of it; use of nukes would count, and similar huge-scale things like active genocide (according to the legal definition of same, mind; people love throwing the term around to stick it to everything).

The further away I get from that extreme, straw-man point, though, the more important it is that I think increasingly hard about what other situations I'm letting land on the interventionist side of the line. At least up until the last few years the bulk of the world's consensus was that deploying chemical weapons against noncombatants - people certainly ignored enough tossing-around of mustard gas in wars in the eighties - was on the bad side of that line. (Or, I might suggest somewhat cynically, the consensus was there until the situation fucking came up.) Do I agree there? I lean in that direction, though I also recognize that there's already an extraordinarily ugly situation going on. If Assad had reacted to the initial protests before the war by nerve-gassing the demonstrators, that would be about as over-the-red-line as I can think of in a feasible situation, but things have managed to get a lot less fuzzy since.

All of that's before getting into the range of possible responses once an actor goes over the line, wherever the line may be drawn, of course.

So yeah. I just don't know. Short of the most absolute sovereigntists and the most absolute pacifists, this kind of thing is more complex and more consequential than a lot of the discussion about it has been by an embarrassingly long shot. I'd like to know for sure which side of the line things fall on in my own head. I'd like to know where the line as a whole is as well.

Those are both important questions, which I think everyone who has any interest in the world as a whole needs to be asking themselves. For now I've got an inclination for one, and far less certainty than I'm comfortable with on the other.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

149. Thank you for your well written response

That was exactly the type of conversation I was trying to spur. It looks like the entire U.S. is caught up in debate of this ethical dilemma.

[Posteritatis]

150. Definitely not just the US

Britain and France have both been having the same discussion, for example, and I know it's going on in other places as well. My own prime minister's just a pissant little warmonger who I generally dismiss on those fronts, and Canada has little ability to do much heavy lifting abroad, but there's been a lot of discussion over the last generation here about where our own lines are, what we should be willing to get involved with when the bigger powers get interventionist, and how far we should be willing to take that. Our 2004 election was largely fought over that question, and it's coming up in the media again quite a bit (even though we're certain to be sitting this one out no matter what happens).

Other, more obscure countries have found positions they're comfortable with getting involved with; you never hear about Nepalese or Tanzanian soldiers wading into the CNN-interrupting military interventions, for instance, but they've got 2,250 soldiers between them in a shooting war right now, trying to impose or restore some semblance of sanity in Congo.

While the situations that bring the argument up are universally horrible, I'm quite okay with countries rehashing the question regularly, since it's an extremely important one.

[bowens43]

151. what if comets shot out of tthe ass of green and pink zebras?

[Rex]

152. Thread win!

[Pretzel_Warrior]

153. thank you for the thread kick

you are awesome as usual

[Logical]

156. What "international military response" are you talking about. Who is helping us on this????