To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behavior or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
Note: This is a personal blog, and the only use of any of this is for me to go, "huh, Cool." on the rare occasion I think to go look at any of this stuff and realize that (based on the analytics) about 3 people per month still care what the internal dimensions of a 10 year old MINI Cooper S Clubman are...
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
Very interesting facts
I believe we should stay out entirely.
I'm hesitant, number 6 is well stated, but at 7 they lose their footing;
From the article, "firing a few cruise missiles doesn’t cost us much and can maybe help preserve this really hard-won and valuable norm against chemical weapons."
This is based on the assumption that Assad launched those weapons, or had control over their use. Both Assad and Russia have explicitly denied that they used such weapons.
The red flag here is the way that language is used when talking about Russia; "Russia will continue to block international action". Quotes like that betray a preconception that the Russian action is illegitimate, and that American action is both international, and legitimate.
+Megan Faith I think they did a pretty good job of demonstrating that Russia likely has a plethora of reasons to block actions taken by the US, the UN, or a coalition of Western European Nations that aren't at all related to the issue that might cause the US, the UN, or a coalition of Western European Nations to want to take action in Syria.
I'm not saying that Russian opposition is unwarranted or illegitimate – but it sure feels like they don't have the best interests of world peace and harmony (and universal condemnation of those who would upset it) at heart, the way that supporting the (telegraphed) airstrikes (against buildings that are very likely empty) would indicate.
#7 is based on the (hard to argue against) presumption that, as the guy what leads the nation's military (whether your Presidency is of the US, or Syria, or Tuvalu), you are where the buck stops when it comes to the use of your nation's chemical weapons stores.
This article seemed like a fair breakdown of the basics in this conflict. I think the real issue is that "just the basics" can't really paint a good picture of what is actually happening. I feel like an entire poin t should have been used on the uncertaintity of who used the sarin gas. If it was assad, and I believe it was, then there may be cause for cruise missle strikes. If it wasn't then these attacks only empower jihadist groups and bolster the alliances that support the assad regime.
Secondly Obama is seeking congressional approval for military action. That is war powers. The only gaurentee we have that there won't be boots on the ground is politicians telling us there won't be. If the only goal was to launch cruise missles and disable chemcal weapon stores the president could easily do the using executive authority. The fact that he is seeking congressional approval for this (after not bothering for libya) makes me nervous