General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWatching John Kerry give Colin Powell's speech I am disgusted
Is there anyone left in the Democratic Party that has any integrity at all? And to think that I voted for that son of a bitch. Fuck him and fuck anyone else who will stand up and rehash every old lie and think we will buy their crap. Fuck war and fuck warmongers, no matter which Party they claim.
malaise
(267,823 posts)Recall Congress for a vote or STFU
Little Star
(17,055 posts)leftstreet
(36,081 posts)KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)Last edited Fri Aug 30, 2013, 02:09 PM - Edit history (1)
leftstreet
(36,081 posts)So hard to tell without context
boomer55
(592 posts)we immediately attacked them for doing so...
I remember that. not.
we are so hypocritical as a nation it sickens me beyond belief.
your logic and compassion could prevent the further chaos necessary in the ME to help military contractors put food on their families
elehhhhna
(32,076 posts)ctsnowman
(1,903 posts)iamthebandfanman
(8,127 posts)and hide behind the actions of a senile republican president than look at the situation in front of you , isn't it ?
Except we didn't immediately attack them -- for the sake of accuracy.
elehhhhna
(32,076 posts)ChairmanAgnostic
(28,017 posts)Harmony Blue
(3,978 posts)Rockyj
(538 posts)CIA?
This should be the MAIN reason WHY we shouldn't STRIKE Syria!
Tell me if this isn't why Military Industrial Complex and Oil Corporations wanting us to strike:
"More than a year ago, a $10 billion Pipelineistan deal was clinched between Iran, Iraq and Syria for a natural gas pipeline to be built by 2016 from Iran's giant South Pars field, traversing Iraq and Syria, with a possible extension to Lebanon. Key export target market: Europe."
"...Iran-Iraq-Syria gas pipeline would be essential to diversify Europe's energy supplies away from Russia."
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/08/201285133440424621.html
Who owns our government? Not the American people the MIC, Wall St. & Corporations! WE DO NOT WANT WAR! President Obama strikes Syria without Congress, United Nations & International Support I will actually support the bat shit crazy Tea Partiers to IMPEACH Obama!
Celefin
(532 posts)...their blackened corpses still twisted in agony, reminding you of what white phosphorous does to a living being (like in Fallujah)...
then this wouldn't even have been reported.
It would have been a legal atrocity and therefore not very interesting. No one would have paid much attention and the latest atrocity (this time indeed with white phosporous) would most likely have gone unnoticed. Just another day in hell.
I've got three beautiful kids myself and I'm so sick of this shit and the hypocrisy surrounding it.
There is NO way a military intervention is going to improve the situation. None. At best it will have no effect.
How about helping child-refugees with a hundred million dollars instead of causing sixty huge explosions?
How about helping neighboring countries deal with the stream of refugees?
But hey, that's boring. Let's add some cruise missiles to the mix, why not.
The beauty of high explosives: fireworks on CNN, a satisfying feeling of righteousness and most importantly no photo opportunities when you turn those kids into red mist or bury them under collapsing buildings. Because that's somehow nothing to get worked up about anymore.
robbob
(3,514 posts)I think it's because there is no big bucks to be made helping refugees; dropping (literally) billions of dollars worth or high tech weaponry on Syria will net some arms contractors big money.
Celefin
(532 posts)And I know that. Just can't help my cynicism sometimes.
pangaia
(24,324 posts)War is very, very profitable.. nothing new there, of course...
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)in the US, but were seen all over the world.
Nor do we see the bodies of all the children killed by Drones which SHOULD be a banned weapon and hopefully will be one day.
The hypocrisy is stunning. And arming Al Queda 'rebels' in Syria ensured the escalation of a war there causing the deaths of so many more people had the West stayed out of it.
All these wars need to end, not escalated. If the US cannot influence them positively then we should step out of the picture and allow other nations who seem to not have all the enemies we have around the world, take over the process that will lead to peace.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)posted that picture here to goad us into a strike in Syria.
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)to 1000 dead civilians.
It's possible to object to bombing Syria without resorting to comparisons to Bush/Cheney and Colin Powell.
elehhhhna
(32,076 posts)While we're all talking shit as the jet engines warm up.
qazplm
(3,626 posts)this whole Obama = Bush, chemical weapons schemical weapons no big deal bs is mindnumbingly idiotic.
it is quite easy for folks to be against this attack without engaging in either of those two idiotic and intellectually lazy and vapid arguments.
treestar
(82,383 posts)So you don't want to see it?
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)But everyone has already seen it on TV. I don't like it when people hype up and encourage military action. You are welcome to post all the brutal pictures you want. While you're at it, why not include some from Saddam Hussein's regime when he gassed his own people.
treestar
(82,383 posts)It is simply something that happened.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)Is fair enough.
That's how we were about Bush not wanting to block photos of coffins coming into Dover AFB, of troops who had been killed in Iraq.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)by Cluster Bomb as they were shopping in the market.
Any reason why the US has not prosecuted the perpetrators of those war crimes? We don't even need to send war ships and bombs across the globe to 'punish' them? We only have to arrest them, book them, then try them and send them to where they can never again do such harm to another single human being.
Why did we not see the photos from Iraq on our TV but we are being shown these? All this did was remind me of the over one MILLION human beings killed by the Bush/Cheney War Criminals and how nothing was done about it.
Cluster bombs, what that did to the children and thanks to the courageous photo journalists like Dahr Jamail, there is a record of those crimes. The US Govt tried to prevent that record.
But since this is a picture of the victims in Syria, WHO did this? Cameron admitted this week that they don't really know?
Where is the evidence before we charge off once again and kill the wrong people?
Jeroen
(1,061 posts)Skidmore
(37,364 posts)to bury your head in the sand and pretend that this was some sort of minor dusting. 400 plus young children have been massacred in the past few days by the Assad regime. Many were incinerated in their school, a school targeted by this monster.
The world needs to exact some measure of justice for them.
Jeroen
(1,061 posts)atreides1
(16,046 posts)Yet where was cry for launching cruise missiles, then? Or does it only matter in what form the atrocity is committed?
And when does the world exact some measure of justice for the Iraqi and Afghan children that the US has murdered...or is that different?
Assad is a monster, a big monster...yet we use small monsters who operate UAVs along the Afghan-Pakistani border, and fire missiles into villages killing women and children! And we even give them medals when they do an outstanding job and accomplish their mission, even if it ends up with collateral damage!
Gods are we hypocrites or what? Calling for justice, what a crock...this is selective justice, nothing more!!!
Carolina
(6,960 posts)Double strikes - forget the exact term for them - whereby we strike the target (oops it was a collateral village) and then strike at emergency personnel responding to the first strike! How evil is that?
Kerry's a hypocritical tool
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)until some whistleblower leaks it and they throw him or her in jail for it.
Heather MC
(8,084 posts)Guns, healthcare, and so on.
How many children were killed during Ruwanda
Look we can't go running in guns blazing everytime something bad happens. Why do we have to be the police of the world? Yes we helped create this mess when went to war with Iraq. But starting another war will only help the contractors who get rich off this sirt of thing. If 400 dead babies sadens you, what will the deaths of 4000 Troops do to you?
War hurts far more that it ever helps. And I don't see way we need more air hangers filled with the bodies of American Troops. They sensationalize this all they want. We are being pushed into another BS Iraq War just on Serian Soil.
shotten99
(622 posts)As a member of the Veterans for Peace, I have zero regrets about my time served in Bosnia.
I'd warn everyone to stop conflating all of these conflicts. They're anything but identical.
Heather MC
(8,084 posts)I am just hoping, it doesn't become one of those conflicts, that looks more like a war.
That's all
I am a military spouse. I prefer conflicts that are war free.
The news is making it soumd like all out war is the only option
shotten99
(622 posts)In my humble opinion, I simply sincerely doubt that any involvement in Syria would go beyond air strikes.
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)empty vial.
And other DU'ers have posted pix from Assad's chemical attack. Why is mine so offensive?
Is it because I post it as the comparison other DU'ers are making to an empty vial?
Maybe, just maybe, some posters can step back and think before comparing 1000 dead civilians to an empty vial.
Jeroen
(1,061 posts)And I am sure that everybody on DU is horrified and saddened by these images.
Reposting these images suggest that you think otherwise.
The question we are debating is this: is there undeniable proof that Assad ordered the attack and if so, is a military intervention the right response? It's clear that you have made up your mind and I respect that. Again, what I do find offensive is your suggestion that those who do not favor an intervention are not concerned and disturbed by the death of these children.
Jamastiene
(38,187 posts)Maedhros
(10,007 posts)It is disingenuous for you to keep stating so.
We're questioning the unilateral rush to aggressive military action before the UN inspectors complete their investigation and publish their findings.
We demand independent, incontrovertible evidence that the Assad regime perpetrated this attack before we start killing human beings. All we have seen is yellow journalism urging military action, and no hard evidence. Nothing but emotional appeals based upon horrific images of death. Instead of "Remember the Maine!" we're getting "Think of the children!" As if the hellstorm we're about to visit on the Syrian people won't take its own toll on innocent bystanders, and as if the Administration's drone wars don't generate their own (unseen) horrific images on a weekly basis.
We object to picking and choosing which horrific violence is "an unfortunate necessity" and which is "an atrocity" based upon political loyalties.
Celefin
(532 posts)KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)So face up to it and admit it.
Bush/Cheney and Powell LIED about WMD.
Kerry is not.
You can't even admit it so that means on some level you know it's wrong.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)in an attempt to justify military action.
Obviously not exactly the same, but from the same playbook. Presenting very weak evidence as proof positive.
Just Saying
(1,799 posts)Please be specific.
Bush/Powell didn't overstate-they flat out lied! They used "evidence" that had already been discredited to march us to war. I remember being at work listening to Powell speak to the UN and knowing he was lying to them. Lost all respect for him at that moment.
I don't believe Obama or Kerry is lying. What evidence would convince you the attack in Syria happened and/or that the regime was responsible?
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)I want to see the results of the UN inspectors' investigation.
At this point we have Russia claiming that the rebels used chemical weapons in July, and the U.S. claiming Assad did so in August. Both sources have to be viewed as unreliable, because both countries have a geopolitical stake in placing the blame in a way that is advantageous to their interests.
Only the results of an independent investigation should be viewed as conclusive.
Celefin
(532 posts)Infuriating for some, understandable for others.
You got two measured and articulated responses that didn't contain that equation but actual answers to your other question, why not respond in kind and refute their argument if you feel the need to? No need to shout when you're not shouted at.
RC
(25,592 posts)The discussion is between those of us that believe dead is dead, regardless of whether or not they were gassed, turned into a pink mist, made into various sized body parts or had holes violently installed in vital parts of their bodies by bullets or shrapnel.
Those some-of-us believe that all war is bad, no matter how the innocent people are killed. And this includes using depleted uranium, white phosphorus, napalm, agent orange and anything else we use to kill others. Why is gassing separated out as somehow worse, when it is actually is not? It is just another way to indiscriminately kill people. The real answer is to stop all of it. But where's the money in that?
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)There's a thing called "intent".
It's why there are hate crime laws in the USA.
And there are certainly DU'ers saying this wasn't chemical weapons, or it was false flag.
There are MANY posters calling Kerry's speech about Assad forces using chemicals weapons the equivalent of an empty vial and bogus claims about WMD in Iraq.
RC
(25,592 posts)The closest you got was #3. Have some proof?
dionysus
(26,467 posts)also some posts saying it was "the jooos"\nato gassing people, or rebels purposefully gassing themselves. the crazy is alive on DU.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Come to I/P. We have a cottage industry of posters claiming that no dead Arab is ever actually dead, or that if they are it's because their parents murdered them. 'Cause you know, Arabs are a child sacrificing death cult - a claim that gets you rightly banned when you say it about Jews, but never when you say it about Arabs.
Point is, DU - and very clearly its admins - have been nothing but tolerant and accepting of this exact claim for years. Is it suddenly a problem now? Is it suddenly offensive now? Why suddenly take umbrage at such a claim, when for so long it's been happily accepted in this community, all the way up to the very top? It's I suspect only because people are using these dead children to justify killing even more Arabs.
Of course those children are dead, and thousands more like them besides. And it's fucking grotesque that anyone would come up with a claim like "oh, they're acting! They're drugged! They did it to themselves!" But... that's the sort of claim towards Arabs that I've come to expect on DU. Thanks for arguing against it, honestly... but it'd be nice if it weren't just for this "special occasion."
dionysus
(26,467 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)It takes a special brand of masochist to hang out in there.
And just so you know I wasn't berating you, personally.
dionysus
(26,467 posts)NealK
(1,791 posts)ohheckyeah
(9,314 posts)page?
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)bvar22
(39,909 posts)..and HOW many children are you willing to kill in Syria under the pretext of stopping the killing of children.
I've got photos that deliver an emotional punch too,
but I won't use them for partisan reasons.
fascisthunter
(29,381 posts)if you did, you'd wanna know who did it.
Marr
(20,317 posts)MyNameGoesHere
(7,638 posts)USA! USA! USA! We are number one.
http://goo.gl/qnFPgv
So next time Assad should learn from the masters of disaster.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)libdem4life
(13,877 posts)FirstLight
(13,352 posts)I just get the reviews here...but I already knew he would be that way. disgusting
stillwaiting
(3,795 posts)MASSIVE corporate coup d'etat.
It really is stomach churning just how bad the TPP is, and I think they definitely need cover to pass it this fall.
Of course, any war seems great for the MIC and its interests.
JRLeft
(7,010 posts)5000 a month over a 2 year period.
Ocelot
(227 posts)Sickening beyond belief that any President would want to bomb a country to bits and cause exponentially more children to suffer just to take the heat off his corporate fat-cat friends.
Skidmore
(37,364 posts)Assad, and told him to line up a few missiles loaded with chemicals and point them towards locations with the most children present? Was that how it worked?
99Forever
(14,524 posts).. the good ol' belittle anyone who sees thru the evil shit 1%ers do tactic!
Bravo! Well played, tool.
Skidmore
(37,364 posts)I will remain a skeptic but not become paranoid.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)Last edited Sat Aug 31, 2013, 11:59 AM - Edit history (1)
... the scum that have taken over our government are capable of doing, you had better get "paranoid" sister, 'cuz "they" won't hesitate to stomp you just like the rest of us grapes the moment you become inconvenient to them.
Skidmore
(37,364 posts)you meet in passing on the internet. First of all, this "brother" is a housewife and grandmother in the heart of the Midwest. Second This housewife and grandmother has done a lot of living in many areas of the world. Third, I don't identify with grapes while it appears that you do. Paranoia brings fear and fear clouds the mind. People become reactionary out of fear and reactionism looks to the past continually. When you are looking backwards continually, you will never be able to establish progressive ideas. This is the problem I have with some of those who label themselves "progressives" now.
I am a liberal and have been one for all of my adult years. I have never forsaken my liberalism or sought to hide behind any other label because I couldn't own my own beliefs. I carry with me a set of ideals but do not write off others when theirs are not 100% enmeshed with mine because living with many others has taught me that there is much good in most people and we should always be seeking to tap that good. It has never been my first inclination upon meeting others to not hear them out or to assume that they are enemies at the get go. And, yes, I believe that you return to the basics in times of confusion. What makes sense.
To me the focus right now should be on breaking up the Koch brother's takeover. For years on DU I kept positing that there was a hostile takeover of the government not unlike the hostile takeovers we saw in corporate mergers. Common sense indicated that if something walked and quacked like a duck, it was a duck. No one would ever respond to those ideas. I'm done talking and I'm done explaining myself. I can look at the world and my nation as well as anyone else and draw conclusions based upon my experiences and the information available to me. The truth always lies between the absolutes and time usually bears that out.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)... to reflect your biggest bitch with and I stand behind the rest of it. Period, save your browbeating sermons for someone else.
Skidmore
(37,364 posts)99Forever
(14,524 posts)What bloody "name" did I call you?
Very "creative way" to try and silence opposing opinions.
boomer55
(592 posts)G_j
(40,366 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)His speech was clear, and he laid out the process for making a decision. He said any response would not be open-ended. It will be nothing like Afghanistan, Iraq or Libya, and it will not involve war. No troops.
He did not confirm a limited strike.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023563410
Kerry did not give "Colin Powell's speech."
1-Old-Man
(2,667 posts)You only heard what you chose to hear. One sentence in a speech that runs contrary its entire bent is a meaningless sentence.
avaistheone1
(14,626 posts)Play those funky war drums white boy.
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)spanone
(135,636 posts)Celefin
(532 posts)That's insane. But then I'm old-fashioned.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)in any way that suits your POV.
So in this case, it is not a war unless there is a full army with boots on the ground...and we are spoused to believe it and STFU.
Meanwhile the bombs in this non war will kill thousands and it don't count.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)ctsnowman
(1,903 posts)can't cut back on the MIC now.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)"I can't tell you if the use of force in Iraq today would last five days, or five weeks, or five months, but it certainly isn't going to last any longer than that."
--Donald Rumsfeld, November 14, 2002
"It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months"
-- Donald Rumsfeld, February 7, 2003
"I think it will go relatively quickly. Weeks rather than months."
-- Dick Cheney, March 16, 2003
Source: The War in Quotes, by G.B. Trudeau, p. 40-41 Oct 1, 2008
SwampG8r
(10,287 posts)do you believe that absent the threat of actual invasion assad will reform?
he will just hunker down and wait out the missiles and then business as usual i would think
or worse he will appeal to his allies to help him and they will so no loss to assad
i just don't see what the point is other than shooting off rockets if we take a ground attack off the table now
phantom power
(25,966 posts)Hydra
(14,459 posts)Celefin
(532 posts)Catherina
(35,568 posts)Raksha
(7,167 posts)Catherina
(35,568 posts)when Jackie Kennedy, during their courtship, asked him to define himself.
Raksha
(7,167 posts)This is a note I posted on Facebook earlier, in response to a friend who said "I guess I place more credence in our government than you do."
I give our government no credence whatsoever...NONE! I can't afford to. Although it isn't even "our government" exactly but the globalists who pull their strings, who are the real power behind every throne, who are the true culprits. I have found that I can predict their behavior fairly accurately if I assume they will act from the most destructive and inhuman motives I can imagine. In other words, if I assume they are the embodiment of pure evil, or the Christian devil as our mutual friend Allan would say, I am right more often than wrong. Yes, I'm a card-carrying tinfoil hat conspiracy freak. I thought you knew that by now.
The context was a link I posted (several links, actually) to a story claiming that the Saudis, and specifically Prince Bandar who is now the Saudi head of intelligence--supplied one rebel group with chemical weapons without telling them what they were.
Somehow that story hasn't shown up on DU yet, or at least I haven't seen it if it has.
Catherina
(35,568 posts)transporting 'tube-like structures' and 'huge gas bottles' from Saudi Arabia? The callousness doesn't surprise me.
It's all over twitter. Along with videos of the interviews. I'm sure the UN has plenty of testimony too so the news will eventually filter to the more honest media outlets. I hope it won't be too late by then with the rush we're in.
Raksha
(7,167 posts)NRaleighLiberal
(59,940 posts)questionseverything
(9,631 posts)about the nsa...kerry kept saying "our intelligence community" and every time it made me gag a little....how do they think we can believe anything that comes out of clappers mouth or his agency?
a lot of folks with good reason wonder if this isnt cia bs
another problem is,even if what govt says is true is there are still no good solutions...bombing will only affect innocents
avaistheone1
(14,626 posts)After all the NSA bulls**t, how can Kerry expect the people of this country are going to want to start throwing bombs at Syria?
Yup, no good solutions. Best to stay the hell out of it.
MisterP
(23,730 posts)when the Establishment's main points became "complaining about the candidate's right-wing choices endangers the left-wing policy he'd bring," "it's immoral to disagree with the designated candidate, ever," and "the tiny LW minority causes all problems in the world"
blm
(112,920 posts)I know Kerry had been doing exactly that since 2005. And taking the hits from the war hawks and neocons who became angry that Kerry took away the Syria war they wanted.
Surprised that so many of you who think you're informed' know so little about what's been going on in Syria the last 8 years.
MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)blm
(112,920 posts)Point being that Kerry has personally been working towards diplomatic solutions in Syria for the last 8 years in order to PREVENT war in Syria that neocons and war hawks have been angling for since 2005.
Big difference when you put it all in context.
MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)Citations?
blm
(112,920 posts)You're just paying attention now and judging Kerry because you THINK you know what's been going on?
Read this thread. I posted some links to another skeptic.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3562064
MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)Sec. Kerry wasn't "preventing" anything remotely like a war, e.g., our attacking them. Only since the Syrian uprising has it even been discussed (outside of Neocon circles). Now that chemical weapons have supposedly been used it gives a pretext for us to attack.
The idea that Kerry has somehow been preventing what we're about to do for 8 years is beyond laughable.
blm
(112,920 posts)and you're apparently too precious to bother studying further.
you're peddling bullshit
blm
(112,920 posts)Last edited Sat Aug 31, 2013, 12:09 PM - Edit history (1)
you read about the US-Syria dynamic of the last decade. Or...you never read any of it in the first place...and....trash comments are SO much easier...you don't even have to engage your brain....do you?
cali
(114,904 posts)blm
(112,920 posts)of the last decade, and certain that their weak search into recent events gives them all they need to know to argue their dug in position.
treestar
(82,383 posts)they know more than Kerry - they can at least listen first, or respectfully disagree, but they always choose attack mode when it comes to Democrats.
delrem
(9,688 posts)I think the following is required, in this neo-neocon spring.
Carolina
(6,960 posts)We weren't like Kerry who was for it before he was against it, who callously voted for IWR and who knows damn well that the US has used chemical weapons - napalm, Agent Orange, white phosphorous and more - when it suits its purposes. Neither he or this country have any moral standing.
treestar
(82,383 posts)prevents us from having any Moral Standing, whatever that is. We don't have to just allow others to do awful things because we once did somewhat bad things.
Iraq - there was no proof there, here there is. In fact anyone for intervening in Iraq based on Saddam merely having WMD should be even more strongly for it here, where they were used.
All of this is to avoid the question, do we really just let this go?
Carolina
(6,960 posts)matters, because this country has not changed and because past is prologue and because those who don't study/review/learn history are doomed to repeat it. This country and Kerry have no moral standing on killing civilians whether with gas or bullets or bombs.
It's time to focus energy, resources and manpower on cleaning up our own house, PERIOD!
treestar
(82,383 posts)That's the real question.
There is no one in Washington launching chemical weapons into any part of the United States. So we have Moral Standing there.
What about other countries? Should the UK just let this go?
What if Assad continues to do it then? Not our problem right? No blaming the US for it, right?
Carolina
(6,960 posts)We let ourselves get away with "it" everyday. We kill and provide the tools of death to others everyday. Guns, bombs and chemicals of assorted varieties...
Spare me your line in the sand with Assad
treestar
(82,383 posts)So he should just get away with it?
And when it happens again, no blaming the US right?
Carolina
(6,960 posts)You are willfully blind then to this country's recent history of supplying chemical weapons to Saddam then turning a blind eye when he used them against Iran and Iraqi Kurds in 1988.
Not to mention, as I stated up thread, it's history of using napalm, white phosphorus, depleted uranium (in Iraq, too and recently)...
Puhleeze, spare me the tripe about us doing something to them before they do something to US... it's so Bushian and so wrong. Sounds like "Iraq, the next step..."
And all it means, as I have also said before, is more death and destruction
Bye, bye... No sense responding to your Bushian mentality any longer
NealK
(1,791 posts)We let him get away with what, exactly? So far there are no proof that it was him who used chemical weapons, the U.S government admitted it. The British dumped the U.S because they know that this whole story is crap. It's all about oil, again. Nothing to do with anything humanitarian. Humanitarian strikes? give me a fucking break. Bombing Syria will accomplish nothing positive, only more civilian casualties, lots of them.
delrem
(9,688 posts)blm
(112,920 posts)as he developed a diplomatic relationship with Assad.
I find it interesting how little so many of you know about US-Syria relations,
delrem
(9,688 posts)blm
(112,920 posts).
tomp
(9,512 posts)...what a wonderful COINCIDENCE that the man with so much knowledge of syria is made secretary of state just in time for a war there! who could be more credible? and a DEMOCRAT no less (we all know how anti-war they are). it's almost enough to make one think there is a divine hand at work here (or some kind of hand).
so, beyond the sarcasm...i have to admit i'm not up on the details of this, but i assert: i don't have to be. that is because i proceed from long established principles: 1) war (boots-on-the-ground or not) is morally wrong unless one is defending oneself against attack. 2) NO military action by u.s. imperialism is for the good, EVER. No person of conscience or political understanding can support u.s. imperialism (if you're going to deny the existence of u.s. imperialism, or any other form of imperialism, we have nothing to talk about). whatever is going on in syria (or anywhere else in the world), u.s imperialism has been a major player in creating the conditions we see today.
there you have it. if one's "in depth" knowledge doesn't include and proceed from that, one is off track. ergo, kerry is off track.
blm
(112,920 posts).
tomp
(9,512 posts)Carolina
(6,960 posts)Kerry is such a tool, but I think many of us realized that after his morally bankrupt IWR vote. He lost his moral compass ages ago, moving up the political ladder and marrying the uber rich republican Mrs. Heinz
He's a 1%er now and has been for quite some time
mojowork_n
(2,354 posts)...in a coordinated sponsorship program. The Saudi and Qatari governments
are the other sponsors.
It's not as if the U.S. isn't already FULLY committed to the Sunni Islamist side,
and we're just now reacting to forestall the senseless death of more innocent
civilians.
http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/08/30/why-syria/
RDANGELO
(3,430 posts)In this case, I hope they are just looking for ways they can save some peoples lives with limited involvement.
MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)When this all falls apart the religious minorities will suffer. Christian and Alawite ethnic cleansing for sure.
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)dflprincess
(28,057 posts)approval, and he supports a military strike to punish Syria for allegedly using chemical weapons on its own people. " (this is per Minnesota Public Radio).
(Of course, Al originally supported the war in Iraq but changed his mind before he ran for Senate, knowing that that position would not play well with the DFL and that his competition for the endorsement, Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer, had always opposed the war and was the more progressive candidate.)
Al's position did not get a very good response from the public at the Minnesota State Fair and reports from the DFL booth are that support for military intervention is not popular with DFLers.
Of course there are a few like the woman I spoke to in the booth yesterday who told me that this was different than Iraq because before Iraq the CIA was lied to and this time they aren't being lied to. She also, with a smile, told me that Hillary supports intervention - like that would convince me.
I'm sure Al, like every other elected Democrat, figures we'll have no choice but to vote for him. As Nelson-Pallmeyer pointed out "Franken's position will alienate a significant number of Minnesota voters," he said. "They may vote for him, but they won't work hard for him."
And it will probably affect his fundraising efforts with the rank and file.
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)the public.
Now, if we have another Middle-East war with his blessing, maybe he'll utimatly say that he wants to reform that.
DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)K&R
geckosfeet
(9,644 posts)What would you have said?
Syria violated an international agreement that has been in place since the end of WWI. Is that not worth speaking about?
1-Old-Man
(2,667 posts)And if you had watched and listened to the speech you may have noticed that in the end he expounded on the notion that every evil dictator in the world will now feel embolden to spit in our face and that this nation can not stand to lose its reputation (whatever in hell that is supposed to be).
I would not accept that excuse, that our reputation might be damaged if we did not fight, from a fucking 12-year-old.
geckosfeet
(9,644 posts)Again, what would you have said?
I can see what you are saying right now. And I don't think a secretary of defense would try to make those arguments.
I agree in principle - war should be avoided. But gassing a thousand innocent civilians - over 400 children - and you want to just look the other way?
brooklynite
(93,873 posts)You just called Secretary Kerry a liar. You just accused the Obama Administration of fabricating evidence. You just said there's no difference between the Obama Administration and the Bush Administration.
Embrace your anger with pride.
Fuddnik
(8,846 posts)Carolina
(6,960 posts)I cannot even stand to hear him give a speech any more.
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)flpoljunkie
(26,184 posts)of Syria--or for the entire region.
And, what comes next?
Efilroft Sul
(3,573 posts)Maybe the United States should look into getting civilians out of the country and placing them somewhere safe.
RC
(25,592 posts)Who's next on the list after Iran?
JEB
(4,748 posts)they could offer refuge for civilians. I won't hold my breath.
Efilroft Sul
(3,573 posts)Coalitions don't always have to be built for war.
The extraordinary crime against humanity, as Kerry alleges the Syrian regime of committing, deserves an extraordinary response. Would the Syrian regime dare attack a humanitarian effort? I don't know. What I do know is that things would go poorly for the Syrian leadership after that. They should beware of the audacity of stupidity.
Getting the civilians airlifted out to safety also allows everyone to save face. It won't be easy; preserving the greater peace never is. But if the United States is committed to the overall safety and welfare of Syria's people, it should explore such an option. For more war, yet another war in which we have no real interest, will otherwise come upon us all too easily.
Efilroft Sul
(3,573 posts)I originally read your post as suggesting Syrians be sent to Iran. Now that I've reread this thread, I think you meant that the United States will bomb the shit out of the Iranians after the Syrians to bring them our brand of freedom.
My bad. It's late for me.
KG
(28,749 posts)they've always been has ready to drop bombs as the other guys.
MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)Arcanetrance
(2,670 posts)But there are times one must take a stand for example the use of chemical weapons on a civilian populace. Yes America has done some bad and that should be addressed but this idea of peace at all costs in the end does nothing but get everyone killed. I haven't made up my mind on supporting military action in Syria. But I'm not going to close my mind the facts this is a complicated situation and has no black or white options
Skittles
(152,965 posts)why just America?
Arcanetrance
(2,670 posts)1-Old-Man
(2,667 posts)This nation is not threatened by Syria, it never has been and never will be. And feigning false outrage at this atrocity while ignoring a myriad of others is simply disingenuous. And that is the very best I can say about this outrage.
Arcanetrance
(2,670 posts)It outrages me when America uses drones against civilian targets.
MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)Arcanetrance
(2,670 posts)Peace is nice I would prefer peace to war any day of the week. But the world isn't this idyllic place where we can all skip happily together with rainbows and bunnies. Sometimes military force is necessary. The purposeful targeting of a civilian populace with chemical weapons is one such time. This isn't like Iraq where there's no proof here there's ample proof.
MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)SO you know who used that gas? You know what will happen to the country once it falls apart? You know that there will not be ethnic cleansing of the Christian and Alawite minorites? Or, failing that, you have a plan for whom to bomb once the ethnic cleansing starts...?
bvar22
(39,909 posts)Why don't you provide some links to this "ample proof"?
...because I haven't see ANY.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)And for that you will be called a warmonger.
The_Casual_Observer
(27,742 posts)of a good war. It's another rush job. It's been ten years, long enough to replay the old con.
sarcasmo
(23,968 posts)And we are having the same trouble connecting the dots.
markiv
(1,489 posts)reminds me of a scene from demolition man 'now all restaurants are taco bell'
markiv
(1,489 posts)if i may paraphrase the younger Lt Kerry
polynomial
(750 posts)Listening to John Kerry talk about how the Arabs are condemning this gas chemical stuff going on in Syria. Well how about that, O.K. folks lets get those upset Arabs together. We know the Arabs are very angry we will have a hard time holding them back from going in to solve this difficult problem.
Yes America even though those Arabs live right around the corner from Syria Americans knows the total Ernst desire to jump into a Toyota pickup loaded with machine guns and gas masks are shovel ready to build safe bunkers or administer anecdotes leaping into action to explode on the war effort.
Yes, those angry Righteous Islamic stereo fidelities, the Rehab of Jihad free market oil profiteers. Yes, those Arabs of fortune, the Carlyle Cheney/Bush bots should and could join hands with Americas very own mercenaries, everyone getting two hundred grand a pop.
Only one caveat we the people would like squads of nineteen Arabs to every one mercenary. Good balance and Americas lucky number, we are sure it will crash onto every compound we aim for, Bush and company held the door open before might as well do it again.
Or maybe just air drop some gas masks and medicine with thousands of leaflets mapping to the nearest clinics for medical treatment.
Sound ridiculous, yep, so does giving them gas masks or medical supplies. Too big to fail huh.
What the heck kind of gas is it anyway, did America sell it to them? Probably one of those secret derivative deals. place your bets, before the bail outs.
Where's the beef? Or the Red Cross!
blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)DhhD
(4,695 posts)convince the World to go to War in the Middle East to save Israel, Iraq, I mean, Syria.
http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2003/November%202003/1103shock.aspx
MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)also trying to say that if we don't punish Assad then Iran will develop nuclear weapons is disingenuous.
forestpath
(3,102 posts)idwiyo
(5,113 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)There were no WMD in Iraq. Period. At the time Colin Powell gave that speech, the UN Weapons Inspectors had been on the ground in Iraq for two months and had searched almost all suspected sites and had found nothing.
That stands in stark contrast to a situation where there has been an actual chemical attack.
I still think Secretary Kerry and the administration are wrong for leading us in the direction of a military intervention, but the two situations are not remotely similar.
JEB
(4,748 posts)pangaia
(24,324 posts)in my car coming home from work. Holy shit. He sounded like he was having an orgasm..of sorts.. just foaming at the mouth,, I couldn't believe it.
Is this the same guy I once supported?
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Rosa Luxemburg
(28,627 posts)I have already posted my solution.
David__77
(23,220 posts)Better than Clinton as SOS, but we deserve better, and rightly should have gotten it.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)greenman3610
(3,947 posts)DissidentVoice
(813 posts)Are they still fighting the Vietnam-era myth that Democrats are soft on defence, by thinking they have to be "hawkish?"
Everything about this is WRONG.
The UN is not sanctioning it.
Our principal ally, the United Kingdom, has voted against it. Unlike a US President, a British Prime Minister has to abide by the decisions of Parliament, unless s/he wants to face a potential vote of no confidence.
Without the UK, NATO and the British Commonwealth aren't going to be on board.
This go-it-alone "cowboy" approach was a big part of the reasons (among many) I got so disgusted with George W. Bush.
Is this more "Third Way" bullshit?
underthematrix
(5,811 posts)not intended for a US audience? It is just one of the ways countries conduct diplomacy. Well maybe I should modify that. It may have been intended for the neocon inbreds. But they're not really Americans so maybe my first take it right. The truth is you will not be able to understand the purpose of Kerry's speech until it is disclosed in a BOOK long after President Obama is out of office. No one really knows why Bush took us into two wars. I imagine it will be a long time before we get the real skinny on that one too.
DissidentVoice
(813 posts)Do you really think Kerry is going to disclose his reasons for his speech in a book years down the road?
As for Bush...Afghanistan, we were attacked by the Taliban, and Afghanistan was harbouring them. That's why we had NATO and the British Commonwealth on board.
Iraq..."he tried to kill my daddy."
Melynn
(1,702 posts)Something to keep in mind going forward.
LaydeeBug
(10,291 posts)for doing a better job at speaking my mind. LOL
gussmith
(280 posts)Some details would help. In decent English please.
shotten99
(622 posts)I'm not arguing that military action should take place in Syria, but this isn't Iraq.
Likewise, if the neo-cons had actual military expertise and didn't handle Afghanistan and Iraq like dry drunk morons playing a game of Risk in the dark, none of these arguments would be happening now.
Not Sure
(735 posts)I couldn't have said it better myself.
great white snark
(2,646 posts)You're free to disagree but you're not free to rewrite history.
ctsnowman
(1,903 posts)of the usual admin apologists have checked in. Everyone who knows children bleeding out from a wound to the gut is so much more humane than gassing.
tiredtoo
(2,949 posts)Just saw one of those neocon war mongers on cnn. I tweeted them asking them to tell us why the 100,000 killed using conventional weapons did not raise their ire?
No response and none expected.
More bullshit from our government for sure.
on edit...
Going back to Al Jazeera now.
dsharp88
(487 posts)Powell spread lies about WMDs from false information that was cherry-picked by the twisted minds above him.
Kerry told us facts about real WMDs the truth of which is beyond dispute based on the horrific evidence we can all see.
I don't want US troops invading anymore than you do, but these two presentations are, thankfully, not the same.
Beer Swiller
(44 posts)You don't know that Kerry isn't doing exactly the same thing that Powell did or, for that matter, that Obama isn't doing exactly the same thing that Bush did. Prime Minister Cameron himself admitted to Parliament that he had no conclusive evidence that the Assad regime used chemical weapons. If he had, he would have presented it to Parliament instead of jeopardizing his position by blindly following Obama's lead, as you are doing right now.
There is no definitive evidence that Assad did this, or even that chemical weapons were definitely used. As Vladimir Putin said, Assad was winning this civil war; he had absolutely no incentive to play a trump card for his opponents(whom, need I remind you include Al-Qaeda?) to cry for Western military intervention. The fact that Obama urged the UN to pull their inspectors out ASAP, before they finished their investigation, is very suspicious.
No, he's rushing willy-nilly into another damned war, and seems determined to do it before the UN can publish its report and before Congress comes back from another one of its ridiculously long vacations. Why the rush?
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)make the case against war here.
karynnj
(59,475 posts)and what Powell claimed Saddam had was NOT true and he likely knew that. NOTHING that SOS Kerry said is a "lie" - and he did takes pains to qualify his assertions with "highly likely". In fact, I suspect in most of the world, the dispute is NOT with what Kerry said Syria likely did - but what should be done about it.
In the case of Powell, there was no current action of Saddam that triggered anything. It was purely the US providing bogus information of FUTURE dangers. (ie the model they followed was to have a fake version of the Kennedy presentation showing that Russia had placed missiles in Cuba.) Here, Kerry is speaking of a chemical attack that nearly everyone conceded happened and to make the case of why our intelligence agencies see that it was very likely done by the regime.
For those equating Powell and Kerry, it is easy to list things that Powell said that he likely knew were not true. I have seen NO post here that details any charge in the Kerry speech as clearly untrue. I see a lot of - but what about something the US (or others) did, isn't that just as bad? Note that does not make Kerry's summary less accurate. It COULD be used as an argument into what we should do in response - to suggest that even if everything Kerry charges were true, this is not beyond behavior that was not responded to.
An intelligent discussion would be if given what we are pretty sure happened, we can make things better by any attack. THAT is a real question and it is the one that Obama and Kerry are obviously still working on per the coverage of their phone call with legislators.
Some questions, that should at least be considered are:
1) Will a limited attack make further use of chemical weapons less likely - as ANY leader would know there could be a response?
2) What does the country and the world really think of responding militarily to war crimes? Shouldn't that effort come from some international consensus? What happens - when like in Syria, the country in question is a client state of one of the UN permanent members?
Consider the people who spoke of "our" not responding in time to save - the Jews in Nazi days, the various victims in the former Yugoslavia, Darfur, Cambodia (until communist Vietnam did), Rwanda ... etc (far too many to list and I would miss some even if I tried to remember all I know of. What about the 100,000 plus people already killed in this civil war. Should the international community try to stop all civil wars? How and who would do this?
This really comes down to philosophical questions that have raged for at least a century on whether there should be international intervention to stop atrocities. It is a real dilemma when, on one side, there are moral questions of whether you can look the other way when there are crimes of this magnitude, and on the other side, a genuine concern that intervention can often make things worse.
Back to Syria. If the purpose is really a shot over the bow, why not persuade France to push for war crime indictments in the International court that the US does not (but should) belong to. What Kerry presented is a solid case for an indictment against some in the Syrian regime.
3) Should Obama demand a vote from Congress. I think this is the way to go. There is no real reason to rush on this - and if we do nothing ultimately, the longer worldwide and US discussion is even more important than if we attack. This is something worth marking.