When is a red line more of a grey area?

[shoju]

Because I identify with the very behavior that you are calling antisocial or hooligan.

[Taem]

I'm very similar in mindset to what you describe. I'm a pretty casual person. I wouldn't start a fight over bumping into me in the street (even though I have serious problems with people touching me that I don't know), but so help me, if you do something to my children, you'll want to change your name and hide.

This is a common and normal reaction from a parent. I don't think you need to explain this to someone. Protecting ones children is a natural thing, a rule of nature, hell evolution is based on this in a sort of way.....so why write this.
That is why I made my comment. Usually people that tell or write this are people that start beating up other for nothing.....the short fuse kind of person.
(I don't want to make this personal against meat because 'knowing' him here on the lounge he seems to be a nice guy).

The reality is I let my emotion get to me. I've had some time to think about what I wrote and why I wrote it - thanks to FIT - and I realized something about myself I never quite understood before; I had to sit there and contemplate, "why bring myself back to a time I thought long gone, and put it down in writing?"

I realized it was something about the way this administration was handling foreign conflict that was getting under my skin. But what exactly was bothering me about it?

I sat in reflection and realized it was because I saw something in the way Obama was handling things; something I didn't like about myself. Hesitation, backtracking, excuses - all things I let go of back in those dark day's I wrote about on my path to becoming mature. But at an even deeper level, what it really boils down to - this hesitation, this running away - is fear!

I feel like Obama's afraid and has not learned that lesson yet in life, has not overcome his demons that I did so many years ago, running to his advisers like I did to my friends until I realized it was time to get some self confidence and stick up for myself instead of letting others push me around. And it's funny that, even thinking about it here right here and now with the knowledge of what is really bothering me, is still making my blood boil. The irony is that this might not be true at all, and it's only a matter of my perspective on this administrations actions. But that leads me into my next point:

I'm also afraid. I'm afraid that Obama won't be able to make the tough calls or have the courage necessary to protect us if things go South. Having a magnificent speaking ability does not confer confidence, and I've seen something in Obama, a weakness I once had myself: the moves I've seen Obama make for this country have lead us deep into socialistic territory (which in my personal opinion is not so much of a bad thing if done right), however it's Obama's desire to unite and please all parties that has got be worried (I'm referring not only to foreign affairs, but even the passing of the Health Care Reform by bowing to the mighty insurance companies to get his bill passed). Obama is trying to be everyone friend, but you can't play both sides and win. Sometimes you have to make a stand.

So to finalized this and answer my initial question in the first paragraph, why did I put it in writing? I believe it was because I felt like expressing my emotions and jotting them down gave my words a bit of power, and in that regard I felt like it was making a difference, like it was important. I now know it was folly, an expression of emotion; a tantrum! Do I feel I wrote what I did because of the influence of our society? Not really, I know why I wrote what I did, but I won't deny that society influenced the wording I used when I became "reactionary."

EDIT: What did I learn? What is the take-away from all this?

I think just understanding why I feel the way I do has helped me come to grips with my reactions and ultimately gives me more control to see the situation for what it is instead of letting it get under my skin and become reactionary. I still think Obama should take some action in Syria because of what he said, but if he doesn't, I'm at peace with it.

[FireIceTalon]

It seems like to me there is always some ulterior motive when it comes to liberating other countries, and of course that motive is U.S. interests. We are usually willing to help if it benefits us in some way (be it economic, or shoving our western values and culture down their throats), but when countries do try to liberate themselves we don't like it because then we don't get the satisfaction of being the "white knight in shining armor", especially if it actually goes against our material interests for them to be liberated (see the Cuban Revolution). Its all part of the whole White Savior complex

[kandrathe]

A very objectivist observation regarding self-interest as a motivation for all behaviors. Including what Shoju commented on propagating our genetic materials through protecting offspring, and our tribe. Our tribe helps us to survive, and so we commit to our tribes survival to the point of being willing to sacrifice ourselves to ensure the survival of our tribe, and therefore our offspring. This is the fundamental "reaction" in reactionary, which is instinctual and necessarily is devoid of extensive intellectual brooding in a dark smoky German bar.

It is not a huge intellectual leap to proclaim that each of us brings our genetic (nature) and learned (nurtured) societal baggage to the table when we go.

“Since mankind's dawn, a handful of oppressors have accepted the responsibility over our lives that we should have accepted for ourselves. By doing so, they took our power. By doing nothing, we gave it away. We've seen where their way leads, through camps and wars, towards the slaughterhouse.”
― Alan Moore, V for Vendetta

The next obvious predominant human trait is laziness. Although each of us would condemn ourselves for our inactivity, each of us are probably quite productive. I'm not sure if we are productive collectively, but we all probably do enough to justify our survival within the "tribe". However, we tend (en masse) to try to do the least amount necessary, which is actually a rational position. We could do more, but we don't because we conserve our energy for those times when we must do more. So, in reflecting on what Alan Moore wrote (above), in political terms we tend to either lead, follow, get out of the way.

The resistance is a clash of leadership, a new idea, and a new tribe in formation. It is our inaction that condemns us to the miseries we suffer when finally we can no longer ignore our sorry state, and try to resist (in order to survive or thrive). This is when we've discovered that while we've been busy heads down working on our own self interests, that others have put us into a cage. That cage can be many things, political, moral, or physical.

Mostly, we get out of the way or follow -- partaking in various societal opiates (in Marx vernacular). In his day, people by and large followed Religion, so that was one windmill towards which he tilted. In our day, our daily distractions are manifold as evidenced by the ever growing categories of social addictions. We spread our culture (more like a virus), and not shove it. We don't make them buy blue jeans, wear sexy clothing, listen to pop rock platitudes, or drink Coca-cola, but we're very interested in selling it to them. Our need to defile everything is a problem even for us, but due to where they are at culturally, it is offensive. More chickens coming home to roost domestically, as we find ourselves in a place with too many over educated workers, without enough over educated jobs to provide for the young, let alone carry the boomers. Soon, the rock will meet the hard place, economically.

Now, this has everything to do with my OP. And, thanks eppie for pointing out that from our perspective, Syria has become a battle of the worse and bad. I don't think Nasrallah (Lebanon) can for very long walk the tight rope between the Sunni and Shia in this conflict. In fact, just this week, an Al Queda backed terrorist group targetted Hezbollah in Lebanon. I feel Hezbollah is making a mistake in strongly backing Assad, but they greatly fear being cut off physically from their Iranian benefactors. The strongest rebel forces in Syria are gulf state financed Wahabi, and not aligned with Iran. The risk of backing them is in creating another Afghanistan situation where radicalized fighters turn there attention back to the west, and Syria suffers from medieval Sharia law. And, conversely, our oil friends, the gulf state radical Wahabists, don't want to become overpowered by Shia either (Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon). It comes down to the tribes, and their asymmetric civil war mostly doing what they believe (however reactionary) they must to ensure their tribe survives.

Edit: One last bunch of thoughts -- the evil I feel we are complicit to is in converting the oil into wealth, then offering to convert that wealth into weapons which we know they will use to destroy each other (and maybe us). The US may be able to move its oil consumption to Canada and Mexico, but Europe, or China will pay them for it. In Syria, much like Bangladesh and the garment workers, which better fits FITS concept of worker struggle against capitalism, we act in our self interest in buying the things which we can best afford -- but somewhere, some adolescent or teen girl is working in unsafe conditions and getting paid $18 per month to get us that "good deal". When I pump my $3.75/gallon gas I don't tie it to Wahab extremism. When I partake of my favorite chocolate, or coffee, I don't think about the suffering of some of the people who are enslaved in Africa, or South America. One approach is to condemn the whole stinking system, don your black beret and Che t-shirt (made slave labor in India). Or, we can use our intellect to better inform ourselves and hold people, governments and their corporations accountable for their unethical actions, and inactions.

We might be so morose as to imagine it as a vast global pyramid of greed where everyone (in their own self interest) is clawing and climbing onto the backs of others. With us former colonialists in Europe/US lucky to be on the top being heedless of the crush at the bottom. I don't really think that is an accurate picture.

In my life journey, I once had a business partner from India (he was from Mumbai). He came to the US on a student Visa, fell in love with an American girl from Iowa and they were married. Our work together on global projects in the US, and with his connections in Mumbai were enlightening. On the one hand, he was "exploiting" his citizenship in the US (and connections in Mumbai) to gain wealth, but he also brought hundreds of other Indians to the US on H1B visas, and helped sponsor their green card process -- as well as employ and build jobs and infrastructures in Mumbai. All in all, everyone benefitted from this "Capitalism". It was an interesting phenomenon to see how the new workers coming from Mumbai would adapt to their new environment -- in many areas of their life, but namely for this discussion in the area of salary. Their pay in the US was vastly higher, as was their cost of living -- it was typical that they'd get average to slightly below average wages when they first come, but within 6 months to a year, renegotiate now knowing their true market value (how much they were needed and what others were willing to pay them). We don't need a global revolution of workers when it is the consumers who are complicit in the abuses of a few greedy overlords, whereas the vast majority of the worlds capitalist markets are more like ladders, than toppling fire traps. We might grouse about exporting jobs overseas, and NAFTA, and blah, blah, blah, but realistically it is a symptom of a natural correction in our systems where wealth is being created everywhere lifting up everyone. We could do a better job with holding people accountable (and enforcing existing laws). And, back to Alan Moore again, we could do a better job in speaking up and establishing the value of our work and time (individually, or collectively).

[eppie]

EDIT: What did I learn? What is the take-away from all this?

I think just understanding why I feel the way I do has helped me come to grips with my reactions and ultimately gives me more control to see the situation for what it is instead of letting it get under my skin and become reactionary. I still think Obama should take some action in Syria because of what he said, but if he doesn't, I'm at peace with it.

Hmm, I don't know. I maybe see it a bit different from Europe, and the fact is that I am not too much into this but Obama is in his second term so what should he be scared about? For a democrat to be tougher against other countries and even go to war would only be favorable election-wise.

So to me a US president that keeps his head cool has much more respect than one that doesn't.
A good conflict involving the Russians would be great for your weapons industry but for the rest......Iraq and Afghanistan have shown that invading such a country is not so easy, and it also doesn't really help a lot.

[Taem]

EDIT: What did I learn? What is the take-away from all this?

I think just understanding why I feel the way I do has helped me come to grips with my reactions and ultimately gives me more control to see the situation for what it is instead of letting it get under my skin and become reactionary. I still think Obama should take some action in Syria because of what he said, but if he doesn't, I'm at peace with it.

...

I don't want to make this too OT, but I found out something about myself today, and what the hell, might as well share it since I've already made a fool of myself: While looking for my shirt that I knew I put on a chair, it wasn't there and I became upset and made others feel uncomfortable by stomping around making it clear I blamed everyone else since I knew where I had left my shirt last so "they" were to blame, and all because I knew someone in the house had moved my shirt, but nobody could honestly remember where they put it! My wife pointed out to me how I was making others feel and I thought of this thread and realized that, when looking back in my life, in retrospect of all the times I became irrationally upset, that I'm quick to anger! Not just that, but when I anger, I feel justified when it happens, but guilty afterwards because I know my ire was unjustified, but not when it's happening. When it's happening, it all makes sense. Actually, today would have gone under the radar if my wife hadn't of pointed it out, it was over and done in a matter of minutes... yet when she did, it really hit close to home because of what came out of this thread for me a few days ago. Just to be clear, I'm not a physically angry person, just irrationally angry and unintentionally intimidating. I guess what I find so absurd about this whole thing is that with all the foresight I thought I had about myself, I was never able to realize - to be cognizant - of this simple insight until this very moment! How sad. I hope in time to change, and I don't think I'm like this all of the time so something must be stressing me out IRL, but regardless, in times when I do act this way, I'm going to try to be aware of it, to catch it immediately and be the one in control, not through anger or intimidation, but through sharp wit and intellect and with a clear head. I don't want to be reactionary anymore if I can help it! I guess the trick is to reach this state without feeling like I'm loosing part of myself in the process as I'm finding I'm constantly second guessing my actions now, worrying if I'm being too harsh or not.

Hmm, I don't know. I maybe see it a bit different from Europe, and the fact is that I am not too much into this but Obama is in his second term so what should he be scared about? For a democrat to be tougher against other countries and even go to war would only be favorable election-wise.

So to me a US president that keeps his head cool has much more respect than one that doesn't.
A good conflict involving the Russians would be great for your weapons industry but for the rest......Iraq and Afghanistan have shown that invading such a country is not so easy, and it also doesn't really help a lot.

Back on track, everything you're saying makes complete logical sense. Obama made a bluff, had his bluff called, and rescinded on his threat. The insurgents are not our allies. They will most likely turn into another American-hating Islamic state. But then again, I would say this is a humanitarian issue, at least if what is reported in the news is to be believed:

4 million Syrians were internally displaced because of the Syrian civil war.

Can I sleep tight at night knowing my country won't go to the aid of Syria? Of course I can, it's not my war. But I question when does the motive move from "protect your people" to "do the right thing?" Obama said it would be when Syria used chemical weapons, and the world believed him, although I suppose that does not seem to be enough for him, or for any country it would seem. Which begs the question, when innocents die, who is to blame? Those that killed them, or those who stood by and watched? When the Syrian government murders civilians to demoralize the rebellion, I think that is an inhuman act. But I remember all the other multitude of atrocities happening in the rest of the world that we don't lay a finger on why? Because they don't support our national interest, and I'm reminded that we are not the world's police, and it will never be "do the right thing", because really, there is no right choice when all you're doing is setting up yet another despot to take the throne who might even be worse than the current ruler. So with all this in mind, I guess I don't give a damn what Obama decides to do because like I said before, it's Syria's civil war, not ours. To be honest, I think it would be a terrible idea to go to war right now with any country due to our economic situation, however call it my ego, call it my vanity, call it what you will, what I feel in my heart is that Obama should not have even issued that "red line" threat unless he was willing to back it up, and that is why I am still upset (that and his lousy excuses instead of just saying, "now is not the time,"). To be clear, I can still be upset at Obama's choice of wording, but still not care about the outcome of events, and my comment about the death's of innocents was not because I'm deeply attached to the situation - hardly, but to bring up a point on how despicable all of our nations truly are when it comes to human rights atrocities, and it just fit so perfectly with what I was saying, that I decided not to edit it out, even though it serves no purpose with what I'm actually saying.

TLDR your rant; get to the point:

I'll reiterate from my quoted text, I disagree with the way Obama chose his wording with the "red line" comment, and with the excuses I felt he gave for not committing to his plan of action. But I understand why he choose to take no action and I'm okay with it.

[Occhidiangela]

The President's drawing of a line was, IMO, a prep move to presenting himself with a future decision point. I don't think he believed he'd be faced with the decision this soon, given that the last thing Assad and his folks want is the Americans coming in ... because it won't be on the Assad side if America comes in. <-- That position is not necessarily in the interests of the US, however, what's been going on of late seems to be more pro Sunni and less pro "new royalty" than not.

The evidence appears to be mixed regarding who did what, but what seems apparent to me is that a Saddam level large use of chem that killed thousands didn't happen.

The old royalty (Saudis, various emirs, Hussein of Jordan) hold a legitimacy (within their own political context, not in an absolute sense) that folks like Mubarak and Qadaffi did not. Saddam and Assad (the elder) rose to power in part on Baathist and nationalist grounds, but their position became like any strong man, that more of a King/ruling family, than president, premiere, or prime minister.

The old royalty are the governments with whom we have best relationships in the Arab world, so their PoV may influence what we do as we work together on common interests.

The minority rule of the Alawites might be objected to, from that PoV, as much as the white Apartheid regime in South Africa was. If you look at this through a sectarian lens, there needs to be a counter to the Shia getting the benefit from American intervention in Iraq which displaced a Sunni minority power structure.

None of it's that simple, of course. IMO such considerations ought to be aired when the "good guy bad guy line in the sand" rhetoric comes up.

We do nothing, as far as I can tell, beyond help through third parties, until we work out a deal with the Russians.
If the chem weapons card can be used to advantage in getting the Russians to sign up for a given UN proposal, or to withdraw support for Assad, that's a whole different Red Line that is crossed. I don't see that happening without both better evidence and a larger chemical weapon deployment.

For the moment, helping refugees in Jordan, and keeping the Jordanian political system in balance despite the unbalancing effect of half a million refugees in their country (remember Black September, anyone?) is the course of action most in keeping with American interests. So too is reducing the effects of this civil war on Turkey, our NATO ally.

End game: I see the formation of a Kurdish homeland when Syria finally cracks.

[kandrathe]

For the moment, helping refugees in Jordan, and keeping the Jordanian political system in balance despite the unbalancing effect of half a million refugees in their country (remember Black September, anyone?) is the course of action most in keeping with American interests. So too is reducing the effects of this civil war on Turkey, our NATO ally.

End game: I see the formation of a Kurdish homeland when Syria finally cracks.

And... Enter Israel. Now I don't know how it will go. I don't know if the combatants will pivot and attack them instead. It will certainly radicalize hundreds of thousands of new homicidal mobile human bombs against Israeli civilians (and consequently Israeli allies). France is on the jihad radar due to their recent (stand up) activity in North Africa.

[eppie]

Latest news:
The UN now believes the rebels have used Sarin. At the moment there is no real evidence either way, but chances are high that the rebels did than that Assad did.

This only proves the point that Obama's careful decision making is at least not very wrong.

[kandrathe]

This only proves the point that Obama's careful decision making is at least not very wrong.

A former Bush era official suggested it could have also been a covert (possibly Israeli) false flag operation to get the US and Europe engaged. So, it might have been neither side as well.

[Occhidiangela]

Being careful was a good approach, until that stupid rhetoric of "crossing a line."

Being careful remains a good choice.

[shoju]

Crossing a Line is still acceptable rhetoric. Crossing a line doesn't mean we strap on the M16's and fighter jets and drones and get ya killin'. We just now need to be more proactive in what we do about the situation. This could mean that we start reaching out to people to find out how we are going to look to find a resolution to the problem.

[kandrathe]

The scenarios were analyzed a long time ago. They have 60+ locations with various precursors, etc. Air war options are bad, since many of these weapons depots are in heavily populated areas. Even with precision strikes, you might release the very holocaust you are trying to prevent. Ground options are bad too, bringing 75,000 to 100,000 US soldiers and equipment into an active civil war where all (more than two, maybe four sides here) would just as likely attack you. In the ground scenario, it is likely that the Syrians would go ahead and "use it or lose it" on the US troops.

And, this is Barrak "we're getting out of Iraq, and Afghanistan" Obama.

This is much more like a room full of gasoline, and your only weapons are matches. I think the rhetoric of crossing the line was bluster, and everyone knows you're not going to light the match.

In a fit of irony though, Syrian's hacked the Onion.

[eppie]

According to the US, Assads people have used nerve gases.
So the UN and US don't agree on this one.

The situation is so complicated. The US is probably rooting for the rebels, even-though they likely will from some Islamic state would they win the conflict. I also can imagine very well they don't are cheering about having to send troops there. It is a dirty conflict and it will cost lives while the results might be positive or negative.

Again, if there were no civilian casualties ,you would just let them finish of each other.

[Occhidiangela]

But why root for the rebels, since the rebels aren't a single faction but multiple factions?

The most organized, devoted, energetic, and well financed "rebels" are likely to be the Al Q and Salafist/Islamist sorts.

How is helping them in America's best interest? I am dying to know.

[eppie]

But why root for the rebels, since the rebels aren't a single faction but multiple factions?

The most organized, devoted, energetic, and well financed "rebels" are likely to be the Al Q and Salafist/Islamist sorts.

How is helping them in America's best interest? I am dying to know.

That is what i am saying. It isn't. The us ( lets phrase it differently) is against Assad, but helping the rebels might backfire on them if it means we get another islamic state like egypt.

[kandrathe]

... if it means we get another Islamic state like Egypt.

That wouldn't be the worst case scenario. Egypt still has some moderates who are willing (and have been standing up against) the fundamentalists. This keeps the ultra conservative fundamentalists in check, so its not like Taliban Afghanistan.

Syria is closer to Iran, so if the Lebanon type Hezbollah, connect the dots from Lebanon to Iran, then that is a worse scenario. They support Assad, but if his regime is ousted, they will attempt to take power in order to prevent themselves from being cut off from Iran. Then you'd have the beginnings of the Nasser style pan-Islamic state.

But, still, I think the nightmare scenario here is a Somalia type failed state with all Syria's arms and WMD's in terrorist possession.

[Occhidiangela]

Moderates don't win civil wars, nor revolutions.

See Russian Revolution as one example.

[kandrathe]

Aye. Or, Minnesota.

[Occhidiangela]

What, are you hosers going to secede now?