If You've Had Your Fill Of American Empire (I Know I Have)... This Editorial Is For You...

[WillyT]

Syria: the US public faces a grim reality TV choice
Obama is asking a jury of safe spectators to press the yes or no button for military strikes. Will they vote for an end to empire?
Jonathan Steele - The Guardian
Sunday 1 September 2013 13.15 EDT

<snip>

...
...
...

It is a case of breathtaking arrogance, a call for recognition that the US is not only the world's policeman but the world's enforcer. Obama said he was asking "every member of the global community" to consider what message impotence and inaction in the face of the use of chemical weapons would send to dictators everywhere. With a half-sentence that brushed the United Nations weapons inspectors aside and dismissed the security council for being "completely paralysed", Obama was saying in effect: "We are the empire. Accept us."

The difference between the rival motions that David Cameron and Ed Miliband put to the House of Commons and the one that Obama's people have drafted for Congress is instructive. In Britain the tone was more good Samaritan than good cop, highlighting protection over punishment. Both motions in parliament talked of alleviating the suffering of Syrian civilians and emphasised the principle of humanitarian intervention. Although Cameron and Miliband used dubious legal grounds to try to justify bypassing a veto in the UN security council by saying western military strikes were needed to protect Syrians, Obama's draft resolution only talks of "protecting the United States and its allies and partners", as though there is suddenly a new threat to the wider world.

The president's promise that military strikes on Syria would be limited and narrow is of course welcome. There will be no Baghdad-style shock and awe. For that we can be grateful. But war is still war, and the dangers of unintended consequences, mission creep and cracking on for the sake of cracking on lurk behind every sandhill.

Obama's draft resolution has a short paragraph on the need for a political settlement in Syria and even calls on the Geneva talks process to be resumed urgently. Is it cynical or just naive? Syrian rebels' intransigence and their unwillingness to attend without preconditions are the main reason for the failure of Geneva so far. US military strikes will only embolden them to delay further. The hope of a ceasefire – by far the most reliable and principled mechanism to protect Syrian lives – will recede again.

The best hope lies with the American public. It is not just the futility of eight years of fighting in Iraq, frustration in Afghanistan, the loss of thousands of soldiers' lives and the maiming of tens of thousands more that are causing so much doubt over a US attack on Syria now. Nor is it only the financial cost of war in an era of austerity. There is a growing sense that the problem goes beyond imperial overstretch. The very concept of empire is under scrutiny. Twenty years ago, Americans were proud to be the world's hyper-power. They felt they had won a great victory in the cold war. Now they see the pit into which that end-of-history triumphalism has led them. The US military-industrial complex and the power elite in Washington are feeling unusually uncomfortable. Even as pilotless drones and missiles have the potential to usher in an age of US casualty-free interventions, Obama is trying to summon Americans to take up a punitive role yet again. The next few days of national debate will be crucial, and in a week's time we will see which button they press.

<snip>

More: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/01/us-public-doubts-attacking-syria

[Thinkingabout]

1. More Guardian crap, they have lost their integrity. Good rags for check out line.

[cantbeserious]

4. What Specifically Is The Objection To The Proposition That Americans May Be Tired Of Empire

eom

[Thinkingabout]

5. This American is tired of untruths, you can't soar with eagles when you dine with Buzzards.

[cantbeserious]

7. Non-Answer - What Is The Untruth - What Is The Objection

eom

[Thinkingabout]

12. You know, there are just some folks who can not see the forest for seeing the trees.

When I read or hear untruths coming from any source then I don't believe the source anymore. Look into some of the stories you read in the guardian and you will see the untruths. Unreliable and without integrity.

[cantbeserious]

13. So - One Misstatement By Any Authority Thus Nullifies All Statements By Any Authority

Then who do you trust since most all will make misstatements at some time.

[Thinkingabout]

23. It degrades your integrity for sure,

[cantbeserious]

24. So - You Do Consider Some Authorities That Make Misstatements From Time To Time

So on what basis do you decide when to consider a source reliable and when to consider a source unreliable?

[Thinkingabout]

28. Then they would fall into the lack of integrity category. Its simple get the truth and you

Will not have to work hard on keeping your story covered. Also if misstatements are passed on when the truth sounds better you might fall into the same category.

[cantbeserious]

31. So Who Do You Consider Truthful

eom

[Thinkingabout]

36. those who do not ask questions

[cantbeserious]

41. Non Answer - Who Do You Consider Truthful - Name Sources That You Rely On

eom

[Thinkingabout]

42. It won't ld not be you.

[cantbeserious]

43. Non-Answer - This All About You - What Sources Do You Rely On For News

eom

[Thinkingabout]

50. When it comes to my opinion you are damn straight it is about me, who else should it be?

I rely on the church bulletin.

[cantbeserious]

51. A Fundamentalist Christian Church Bulletin?

eom

[Thinkingabout]

52. Nope

[cantbeserious]

53. Good To Know - I'll Leave You To Revel In Your Undisclosed Trusts - Take Care

eom

[MFrohike]

15. Interesting logic

That would eliminate virtually every source of published news. Personally, I almost completely disregard TV news when it comes to analysis of anything, but even I doubt they'd make up breaking news items. It seems quite extreme to completely toss a source over one or two problems.

[Thinkingabout]

26. I expect journalist to dig until they get the complete truthful report, if they fail to put the

Truth and correct or retract a previous story when the truth is readily available then it is obvious they want to get a different reaction from their readers. Don't publish a story like it just occurred when the story happened years ago. At least publish when this occurred, if the readers can not handle the truth then it is not up to the media to publish as the real story or if they do there company falls into the rags categories found in the checkout line.

[MFrohike]

33. Ok

I'm not really sure what event you mean, just that the behavior you describe is attributable to just about every published news source in the world. All I meant is that you seem to be throwing the baby out with the bathwater with your original post.

[Thinkingabout]

35. If the shoe fits then wear it.

[MFrohike]

37. It is what it is

You do what you gotta do.

[Dragonfli]

57. LOL, I know about you guys and soaring eagles, this song is to please you

You and your rhetoric have much in common, you must miss this patriot most of all...

I hope you enjoyed your favorite song as performed by your ideological twin!
You neocons and your soaring eagles are just so darn cute I want to pinch the lot of you.

[rhett o rick]

8. Judge the article not the sight. Where are these Democrats coming from

that want to ban sights. Keep an open mind. If you have an argument against the article then state it.

[nashville_brook]

14. Lerp.

[Maedhros]

44. Behold - the great "Liberal" who spits venom at news organizations

that print anti-war columnists.

With "Liberals" like that, who needs Conservatives?

[nashville_brook]

47. hardly worth the ridicule...

it's a level of derp that's so clumsy and disingenuous that it's already self-parody.

[Dragonfli]

58. He can't help it, the poor thing just wants to let the eagle soar, like it did in 2003

Anything standing in the way of his soaring eagle is bad! News organizations that print anti-war columns are "feasting with buzzards" or something and are bad!

All you need to do to understand the PNAC mind is think like a petulant 5 year old bully and you will easily understand their POV and weird hatred of the printed word when some of those words contradict the glorifying of the word "war", only an eagle at war can truly soar in their little minds.

[n2doc]

2. Thanks

Those 90+% of us who oppose military action over there thank you. Peace and nonviolence IS the Majority.

[WillyT]

6. You Are Quite Welcome !!!

[cantbeserious]

3. Kick And Recommend

eom

[LuvNewcastle]

9. It's time to put an end to all this imperial hypocrisy.

We can end it ourselves, or we can wait until the world's had enough and ends it for us.

[rhett o rick]

10. k&r thanks for posting. nm

[WillyT]

16. Anytime...

[KoKo]

11. The "Best Hope" not only lies with American Public but With the World..to

Stop THIS...and get their Butt in Gear looking out for THEMSELVES.

[jwirr]

17. The Guardian needs to address the sale of nerve gases and England's responsibility.

[truebluegreen]

56. I think you mean the United Kingdom

and that has nothing to do with what WE do and have done.

[jwirr]

59. Corrected. Thank you.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

18. But..but...we want another Mission Accomplished banner and expandable cod-piece!!

[cantbeserious]

19. How Much Of This Dialog Is Designed To Direct Our Attention Away From The NSA 4th Amendment Abuses

One Wonders.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

21. A PR flop replaced by a PR war.....destined to be a flop.

[nashville_brook]

20. we've been questioning empire for a while, amirite?

When Obama criticized the Iraq war as a "war of choice" rather than the "war of necessity" that Afghanistan supposedly was, he was saying essentially that the elective war was about empire... and not 9/11 or freedom or whateverthehell. We didn't invade Iraq for humanitarian reasons. Reasonable adults can all agree we did that for the oil.

Obama's criticism was crafted to create the impression that if we elected him, he wouldn't do that. He wouldn't do war for empire.

No reasonable adult believes Syria is about dead civilians or chemical weapons, because most reasonable adults are aware that dead civilians and chemical weapons are things the US historically has little issue with.

The resistance to this war is definitely about a rejection of empire. The case for empire is also weakened by broken promises, a broken economy and the emerging sentiment that Americans have better things to do than fight and die for the 1%'s megalomania.

[cantbeserious]

22. +1

eom

[MotherPetrie]

25. K&R

[DeSwiss]

27. I'm way past sick of it.

The world is sick of it.

The paradigm shift has begun.

And. It. Will. Not. Be. Stopped.

- Everybody needs to get their asses in the right gear......

K&R

[nashville_brook]

48. +1

[orpupilofnature57]

29. How about all the chemicals they (TPTB) profit from but aren't

as apparent an atrocity ? And it's not US but them that have usurped US in to the agenda of the Saudis and the rest of the 1% .

[GeorgeGist]

30. Nostalgia ...

“We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating new realities ... we're history's actors ... and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.” -- Karl Rove to Ron Suskind.

[Royal777]

32. Take this this job and shove it!

Policing is not our job. But if it is we should tell the world to take this job and shove it.

[Phlem]

34. K&R!

Excellent post!

-p

[Spitfire of ATJ]

38. Keep in mind that the United States didn't even want to get involved in the war in Europe,...

...even after Germany bombed London.



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

Post WWII with the Bomb we came to believe we owned the world.

Russia rose as a rival but we have the silly idea that we beat them.

[grahamhgreen]

39. kick

[Cryptoad]

40. Amazing ,

so many defending Assad's right to commit crimes against Humanity without any retribution !

and without any moral arguement to support their positions.......

geeez

The New Justice !

[mike_c]

54. here is the moral argument from my perspective....

We signed the UN Charter, which includes our pledge not to engage in aggressive warfare:

Article 2, paragraph 4

All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

Article 33

The parties to any dispute, the continuance of which is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, shall, first of all, seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice.

The Security Council shall, when it deems necessary, call upon the parties to settle their dispute by such means.

Article 39

The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security.

Take it to the U.N. We are not the world's cop.

[adirondacker]

45. We're half awake in a fake empire...

[adieu]

46. If Obama chooses to enter the Syria fray

even if propelled by a majority yes vote in Congress, I think the Nobel committee should rescind their Nobel Peace Prize that was awarded to him 4 years ago.

[nashville_brook]

49. Nobel Repo Committee. nt

[warrant46]

64. ?

[truebluegreen]

55. Kick Kick KICK!

I am sick to death of breath-taking arrogance.

[marmar]

60. k/r

[woo me with science]

61. K&R

[pacalo]

62. K&R.

[WillyT]

63. Last Kick... Good Luck All...