Sorry bloodthirsty warlovers: No War This Week!

[leftstreet]

Strike against Assad regime stalled by British political rows

Military response to alleged Syria chemical attack may be delayed until Tuesday as Obama warns Syria of 'international consequences'

28 August 2103

Allied air strikes against the Syrian government over the alleged use of chemical weapons could be delayed until next week in the face of strong opposition in the UK parliament to British involvement in immediate military action.

The British prime minister, David Cameron, conceded that MPs would be given a second vote to approve military action to defuse a parliamentary revolt, ahead of a Commons debate on Syria on Thursday. Whitehall sources indicated that the US, which had planned to launch the strikes by the weekend, is prepared to revive a back-up plan to delay the strikes until Tuesday when Barack Obama is due to set out for the G20 summit in Russia.

Such a move by the Obama administration would effectively hand Cameron a political lifeline after the opposition Labour party threatened to inflict a defeat on the Conservative-led coalition in parliament.

In an effort to build support for punitive strikes, the US and UK will on Thursday publish a joint summary of the intelligence which they say points towards the Assad regime's responsibility for the poison gas attack of 21 August in Ghouta, eastern Damascus, that killed over 1,000 people.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/28/strike-assad-regime-british

Awwww...all this foreplay and now nothin!

[magical thyme]

1. A War Delayed is a War denied.

No time to rest on our laurels, however. Brace yourselves; the PR effort will likely increase.

Israeli intelligence likely shows that:

Assad toasted babies in incubators.
Assad ripped out warriors civilian hearts and ate them raw.
Assad tortures puppies and kittens.
...and so on.

[Junkdrawer]

2. I'm sorry. Davie can't come out and play until he does his homework....

even if he does have the catcher's mitt.

[cali]

3. well, I just read that Obama has said that the U.S. is

willing to go it alone. Also read that they want it over before the summit. Who knows?

[Control-Z]

4. I missed that.

Do you have the link?

[leftstreet]

5. Yeah, who knows

Evening news leading mostly with Obama claiming he 'hasn't made a decision yet'

[Autumn]

6. Do you have the link for that cali?

[cali]

8. here

<snip>

Obama administration officials said they would take action against the Syrian government even without the backing of allies or the United Nations because diplomatic paralysis must not prevent a response to the alleged chemical weapons attack outside the Syrian capital last week.

<snip>

http://www.seattlepi.com/news/politics/article/US-willing-to-go-it-alone-against-Syria-if-needed-4766683.php

[Autumn]

11. Thank's cali. I knew I could count on you.

You are the "go to" for information.

[cali]

16. thanks autumn. I try and do the research and martial the facts.

nice of you to notice

[Little Star]

9. Here is one link Autumn.....

WASHINGTON (AP) - August 28, 2013 (WPVI) -- The Obama administration said Wednesday it would take action against the Syrian government even without the backing of allies or the United Nations because diplomatic paralysis must not prevent a response to the alleged chemical weapons attack outside the Syrian capital last week.

New requests for the United Nations to authorize military action in Syria may have complicated the Obama administration's plan to take retaliatory action on the purported poison gas attack east of Damascus that U.S. officials claim was carried out by President Bashar Assad's forces.

More at link:
http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/story?section=news/national_world&id=9220375

[Autumn]

13. Thank's Little Star

[Autumn]

15. You should post that one as a stand alone OP

[TexasTowelie]

23. A question about your sig line?

What is the flag supposed to represent or can you provide a link since I'd like to learn more information about it? Thanks.

[Little Star]

58. The flag is to represent my support for Chelsea Manning & all transgender people...

Someone on DU said that we should see that support flag a lot on DU. I agreed and put it up.

I don't remember the DUer who said that though, sorry.

[TexasTowelie]

74. Thanks for the response.

I suspected that it might be the case, but was wondering if each stripe color might have its own special meaning or a little bit more historical background.

[Little Star]

75. The one I'm showing is the Jennifer Pellinen transgendered flag....

but there are others.

Here's a link that you might like: http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/qq-tgf.html

[shenmue]

7. So we're war lovers if we want to stop watching people die...

What is Assad, then?

[socialist_n_TN]

30. So Assad is our standard?

nm

[HardTimes99]

62. Nicely done! Notice the crickets from the 101st Chairborne? - nt

[frylock]

44. when we send missiles over, you can watch people die while you're watching people not die..

it'll be great!

[PDJane]

10. Good. Let's see if we can delay it indefinitely.

[HardTimes99]

63. Backward, Christian Soldiers! - nt

[The Straight Story]

12. Not by us, but in the congo: UN helicopters strike Congolese rebels

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/africa/2013/08/201382815950221122.html

Maybe we should tell them to withdraw because people dying from others inside their country are not really dying.

Gas attacks and such in Syria aren't really killing people, and those 1 million child refugees are just kids.

Looks like some are getting their wishes and we and others are staying out of it, I am sure any day now it will all go away (well, maybe in the press and on DU, so probably means everyone there is A OK).

Some may love war, others may love letting people be slaughtered as long as they are over there in some foreign land and don't look like us.

And some may not think is the war but we should be doing something since we have the ability to do so.

But let's just walk on by that person in the park being raped and beaten, someone else will help them, if we get involved we might make the person doing the act mad.

[n2doc]

17. Jeez did you ever drink the neocon kool aid n/t

[The Straight Story]

28. Ah, the refrain of someone with no argument is to insult

Which is par for the course of late.

[HardTimes99]

64. When you're lining up on the same side of an issue as Elliott Abrams and

L. Paul Bremer, one is rightly entitled to raise the issue.

It's like being in favor of NSA warrantless spying on Americans after you know that Cheney supports same NSA surveillance.

Something is rotten in the state of Denmark and it ain't dead fishes.

[The Straight Story]

65. So again, no real rebuttal just trying guilt by association

It can't be that hard.

[HardTimes99]

67. There's been rebuttal and riposte aplenty to the

Napoleonic fantasies of the 101st Chairborne.

Is there something specific to which you would care for me to respond?

Or shall we just dismiss your tactical alliance with the likes of Karl Rove and Dan Senor under the rubric of 'politics makes strange bedfellows'?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023543234

[DisgustipatedinCA]

21. What's your plan?

You're in charge now, hypothetically. What will you do? Right up front, I'll tell you is is a trick question, because all of the possible solutions involving our military are very unattractive for a variety of reasons.

You're on.

[The Straight Story]

27. Gather as much intel as possible (maybe even with the NSA and facebook)

Take out strategic sites (as defend by intelligence gathering) to reduce the ability of assad to deliver chemical weapons.

You don't want to hit the sites that store them (for obvious reasons). Since the president has a ton more info than I do I would leave specifics up to him obviously - but the goal is to stop further use and an escalation by assad.

Of course we could do nothing at all and send him the message that no one cares and go watch american idol while he gasses people all day - which I am guessing would make some people quite content.

[NuclearDem]

48. Alright, so, we damage Assad's ability to launch chemical weapons at his people.

How exactly would that suddenly stop people from dying in Syria?

It doesn't stop the Arab Gulf states from supporting Sunni rebels. It doesn't stop Iran from supporting Shi'a fighters. It doesn't stop the flow of foreign fighters from Iraq. It doesn't stop the inevitable conflict between the secular FSA and the Islamist rebels.

It doesn't secure the sarin reserves, leaving them open to either Assad finding new ways to deploy them, or to rebels taking them and gassing their rivals.

You blow up a few artillery pieces and damage a few runways, big fucking whoop. It's not going to stop whats happening in Syria. It won't even help by a long shot.

[joshcryer]

50. The blue hats are authorized to be there by the international community.

Can't we have the international community authorize action in Syria?

[The Straight Story]

51. Not saying we can't, but let's look at the congo and the UN

In 2007, the International Rescue Committee, or IRC, released the results of a pivotal study, which found that 5.4 million people had died in eastern Congo since 1998. They also found that the death toll was mounting at a rate of about 45,000 people per month.

--Now the UN resolution came about in 1999 and there are still people dying there.

14 years of UN involvement

In 2008: Congo war-driven crisis kills 45,000 a month: study

sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Organization_Stabilization_Mission_in_the_Democratic_Republic_of_the_Congo

http://www.enoughproject.org/blogs/congo-death-toll-rivaling-holocaust

http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/01/22/us-congo-democratic-death-idUSL2280201220080122

[joshcryer]

55. Yeah, it sucks. But UN needs more legitimacy.

Syria could be a good benchmark if we let the feeble international community actually have to deal with it. Frankly I think the US intervening when shit goes wrong is keeping the UN weak. It doesn't help that most of these forces are through special agreements with the UN which the US doesn't give a shit about (special agreements = giving over your troops via treaty to work within the UN).

Instead it looks like once again the US is going to involve itself where the international community says no. The aftermath is not going to be pretty and the US will be blamed (and to an extent the US will be culpable because they will be the enabling force).

Russia won't let Syria's civil war last 10 years. 10 years from now another million or more dead Syrians the actions can be taken. Or hell maybe 10 months from now if the chemical weapons are out in the wild. By then Russia will have to act.

[The Straight Story]

56. Now here is some news you could use, would make a good op:

Syria: Russia To Send Ships To Mediterranean

Russia is to send an anti-submarine ship and a missile cruiser to the Mediterranean, according to Russian news agancy Interfax.

More follows...

http://news.sky.com/story/1134531/syria-russia-to-send-ships-to-mediterranean

[joshcryer]

57. Good! Now Obama can say "Let Russia decide!"

"I am on record believing that chemical weapon usage is a war crime therefore I call upon all Security Council Nations to consider their own moral compass."

Pow. He doesn't have to worry about it or do anything.

[dionysus]

76. that'd be a great turnabout: call on russia to reign in their ally.

[dtom67]

54. an attack on Syria would not be like rescuing a rape victim

It would be like running into that par and raping 4 or 5 OTHER people and then, MAYBE killing the rapist.
You see, technology is great, but I don't think we have weapons that can seek out chemical weapons users only. In fact, I read somewhere that we would not strike suspected chemWeap sites for fear of accidental release.
You are advocating killing everyone in the park, just to get at the rapist. And then you hhave the sack to proclaim it a noble act?
Turn off Call of Duty and get real....

[HardTimes99]

66. We sure manage to kill a bunch of 'terrorists disguised

as children' though.



Funny, how that works.

Bravo! for your insightful post. Hope to read more of your work in the future.

[rug]

14. Take solace in reruns.

[HardTimes99]

69. The sequel, however, was 'Shocking and Awful' though. Or

maybe, as some wit yesterday put it, "Awe, Fuck!"

[ForgoTheConsequence]

18. Shucks.

I hope Walmart lets me return all this red, white and blue ribbon and party favors. At least I'll get some use out of the buffalo cheese dip.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

22. Roll patriotic joints with your crepe paper bunting. Just a thought.

[TexasTowelie]

24. This response is highly endorsed by TexasTowelie.

[NightWatcher]

19. Damn, I had tomorrow as the start day in the office pool

I'll happily be wrong, but I'm afraid we will ultimately stick our nose where it doesn't belong over there......Again

[Andy823]

20. Over the top

Look I am not in favor of war, I know what it's like, I lost friends during the Vietnam war, young men I went through basic training with. However using this kind of language "Sorry bloodthirsty warlovers: No War This Week!" does nothing at all except stir the pot for more arguments. I don't think anyone on this board, except maybe some of the trolls, are "blood thirsty warlovers", do you? You seem to be always trying to provoke people and it's not helping the problems here on DU!

[oldhippie]

25. Jury didn't think so, 0-6 ......

At Wed Aug 28, 2013, 07:52 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

Sorry bloodthirsty warlovers: No War This Week!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023553330

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus#communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>.)

ALERTER'S COMMENTS:

Referring to DUers as "bloodthirsty war lovers" is nasty and OTT. Why is it that people can't make an argument without engaging in nasty attacks of those who disagree with them?

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Wed Aug 28, 2013, 07:59 PM, and the Jury voted 0-6 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Nothing wrong with this OP.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Not sure that the op is addressing DU'ers in particular. I will give him the benefit of the doubt
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No, it's not OTT. Some people need a thicker skin. This is a very controversial, emotional issue. Some unkind terms are bound to be used. Deal with it.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: The title does not refer any specific DUer and there are actually people on this Website that are war hungry. The alerter is being overly sensitive.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Censorship is wrong.

[dbackjon]

33. Juries on DU are rarely right

[Warpy]

29. Pro war people have been particularly nasty today

so I'm not surprised this one has been allowed to remain.

However, none of this stuff exactly contributes either to debate or to the community spirit we'd prefer to have here.

[leftstreet]

32. Exactly right

True enough, I'm participating in Hyperbole Week

It's irritating seeing pro-war justifications and downright bloodlust the last few days, on a site for Democrats. The same Democrats who OWNED elections in 2008 and 2012 by taking a strong antiwar stance

[dbackjon]

34. That's ok. We have had blatant homophobia

On DU since day 1 of the site

[leftstreet]

31. Hardly

The Obama administration is talking war

People are going to react to that

You seem to be always trying to provoke people and it's not helping the problems here on DU!

Have you confused me with someone else?

[Warpy]

26. Good, since it now looks like Assad didn't do this one

and was caught absolutely flatfooted by it, reacting with panic.

Let's hope cooler heads in NATO prevail.

In the meantime, stuff that presses all the international community's buttons like stockpiles of nerve gas need to be destroyed since they're impossible to secure when the country starts to fall apart.

That goes for the US, too.

[cali]

36. it looks like he did do it, but that still doesn't make military strikes a good idea

Juan Cole put forth why it's likely that it was Assad's forces.

I've seen nothing that backs up your claim from any serious analyst.

[HardTimes99]

71. Cali, I'm a bit behind the curve here. Do you have a link handy to the

Juan Cole piece or others arguing for Assad's (Assad's forces?) culpability?

As of yesterday, I thought the jury was still out on who the responsible parties were\are.

Thanks in advance.

[cali]

72. the jury is still out- yes, here's a link to Cole

I can't quickly find the piece of 3 days ago where he explains his rationale, but this link goes to another, more recent piece where he also says the evidence points to Assad regime having used the gas. I'm sure you can find the piece I'm thinking of if you do a search through his site.

http://www.juancole.com/

[HardTimes99]

70. Hear, hear! i would also suggest that the current nuclear powers get serious

about honoring their nuclear disarmament commitments in the Nuclear Non-Profliferation Treaty under your same logic. If they care that homo sapiens survives, that is.

[Summer Hathaway]

35. I just wanted to say

how simple the new DU has become to navigate.

Everything is black-and-white - no need to trouble oneself with those pesky shades of gray!

Anyone who doesn't think that Greenwald is the greatest 'journalist' who ever lived is a tool of 'the establishment'.

Anyone who questions Snowden's actions, along with his motives, is enamored of the NSA and thinks 'spying' on Americans is peachy-keen.

Anyone who doesn't worship Assange is against free speech.

Anyone who doesn't refer to Manning as 'Chelsea' or 'she' is a homophobe/transphobe.

Anyone who supports Obama is a mindless cheerleader who agrees with everything he says and does.

And now we're at the point where anyone who thinks intervention in Syria might be warranted is a blood-thirsty warmonger.

Life is so much easier the new DU way - no need to actually think things through, to weigh and measure the opinions of others, and feel some kind of obligation to listen to what they have to say.

All you have to do is look at the handy-dandy chart (and I'm sure there's one available here somewhere), which sets out the extremes between one position and another, e.g.
"Supports the current Democratic administration = Third Wayer". No fuss, no muss! No positions that might fall in the middle need be considered!

Yes, the new DU is so simple - actually, I mean that it's simple-minded. But apparently many posters prefer it that way.

[leftstreet]

38. So...you're disappointed the war's been put off?

Not sure what calling Manning by her preferred descriptors has to do with it, or how you see that as a 'shade of gray,' but whatever...

[FSogol]

43. That's what you got out of her post?

[leftstreet]

47. I don't know why she thought the OP was about her

??

It's an article about the UK and the chances of strikes on Syria being put off until next week

I thought it was relevant given the high-reply war mongering threads of late that make DU look absolutely ridiculous.

The person responded with an incoherent rant worthy of its own Youtube video about Greenwald, Snowden, Chelsea Manning, Third Wayers and Godz only knows what

[Summer Hathaway]

49. Well, apparently I have

mentioned that calling those who are of the opinion that intervention in Syria might be warranted "blood-thirsty warmongers" is demonstrative of the black-and-white thinking that now prevails on DU.

And in the doing, I have opened myself to being black-and-whited.

Yes, of course. In defending the rights of others to hold a view that differs from what a certain contingent has deemed 'acceptable', it is obvious that I am disappointed that the war has been put off.

Thank you so much for stepping forward - and proving my point. To an absolute T.

I could not have crafted a more demonstrative response.

[VanillaRhapsody]

52. Ding Ding Ding ....FTMFW!

[pkdu]

41. ^^^^^^^^THIS^^^^^^^^^

Totally sums up my view at the moment...roll on Sept '14 when TOS supposedly gets all that stuff stopped or MIRTed.

[FSogol]

42. +1. Make that an original post. n/t

Last edited Thu Aug 29, 2013, 06:32 AM - Edit history (1)

[leftynyc]

60. Great post, Summer

The rigid thinking has gotten pretty fucking tiresome. Nuance has absolutely no place here at this time.

[Agschmid]

68. +1

[Bluenorthwest]

73. Refering to people by the wrong gender when you know what they want is transphobic.

It just is. Calling Manning 'he' is transphobic, and brings to mind other folks who have had issues with calling minority members by the terms they want used. I remember when some would go on and on about how 'they always change the preferred term, I just learned how to say black instead of colored and now they want to be called African American!'
It is bigoted to insist that you have the right to call minority members by words of your choice rather than their own.
If you don't like being seen as transphobic you should consider not coming into unrelated threads whining about common courtesy being asked of others.
Your lexicon and style remind me of someone.

[Little Star]

77. +10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

[Spitfire of ATJ]

37. I'm reminded of this...

We're not going to kill,...today.

[jtuck004]

39. Awww, don't take the Hope away... n/t

[SCVDem]

40. Funny thing about Bloodthirsty Warlovers.....

Many of them reside in the comments of Military.com.

I find the anti administration vibe to be over the top and too many are NRA lovong warhawks.

I wonder how many are real vets who were under fire?

[glowing]

46. An intelligent report like they had for Iraq?

Does anyone trust anything either country says or does?

[Turbineguy]

53. I will gladly bomb you Tuesday....

At least it gives Assad time to organize some human shields.

[Little Star]

59. kick

[Laelth]

61. Personally, I hope Obama can game this to improve the chances of Labour returning to power.

In principle, I am opposed to meddling in the politics of foreign countries, but, without question, I'd prefer a new, liberal, non-Blair-led, Labour government in the U.K.

-Laelth