Jesus H. Crackers! It is not a WAR, it's a *bombing campaign*

[cthulu2016]

Last edited Fri Aug 30, 2013, 04:19 PM - Edit history (3)

So many chicken-littles sowing discord by playing on Americans' reasonable fear of WAR by pretending that the military of one nation launching missiles from naval vessels aimed at military and government targets inside another nation is somehow "war."

Puh-lease. Dropping robot-guided bombs on people who can not bomb you back is hardly "war."

It is, I dunno what you'd call it... the continuation of diplomacy by other means?

Just as a recession is when your neighbor loses his job and a depression is when you lose your job, a war is when your soldiers die.

When only other people die it's just management.... an "action."

[font color=green]On the off chance anyone takes this at face value, von Clausewitz defined war as "the continuation of diplomacy by other means," or "continuation of politics by other means." The suggestion that they are somehow two different things is satirical. But having now read, more than once, on DU that bombing people is somehow not "war" if done by remote control I must admit that satire is becoming increasingly difficult to discern.[/font color]

[Tx4obama]

2. I recommend everyone watch the videos of all the children that died from the chemical attacks

... ordered by Assad in Syria.

No one wants to bomb anyone or go to war - but we can't just let Assad keep killing all the kids.

[Agschmid]

3. Horrible videos...

I agree it's my role to try to protect others if I am able.

Not a super popular view right now.

[Celefin]

10. Then spend the hundreds of millions of dollars this will cost on helping kids in refugee camps

You'll find that view quite popular (although not among defense contractors).

A bombing campaign will at best have no effect but most likely just make things worse.

[Agschmid]

85. Did I say bombs?

[Vanje]

33. Bombs don't protect people.

It doesn't matter the reason one launches bombs , bombs do not protect people.

[WovenGems]

4. Yep

Al Qaeda would be a better choice than Assad? Well, no. But at a million a piece the more missiles we launch the better for a certain companies bottom line looks. And that what this about, the bottom line.

[Just Saying]

5. No doubt it's awful.

My question is, what can we do to punish those responsible, not kill even more innocent civilians and not escalate the civil war in Syria. I just don't see a good solution.

[Douglas Carpenter]

7. horrifying - and that was nothing compared to what Saddam Hussein did against the Kurds, Shiites and

Iranians - and that was when he was considered a U.S. allie

[cali]

14. First of all, Assad is by no means the only party killing children and other civilians

in this horrific civil war. Secondly, the type of military strike described by admin officials and military leaders will likely be very, very limited and will not put a stop to the killing. It may even make things worse.

the facts are available to you.

[Tx4obama]

19. Assad is the one using the chemical missiles and the napalm

... I have seen no evidence of the rebels having chemical weapons.

Video of the people that Assad's napalm burnt: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-23892594

[cali]

27. sorry, that's incorrect.

figures.

From May of this year:

U.N. human rights investigators have gathered testimony from casualties of Syria's civil war and medical staff indicating that rebel forces have used the nerve agent sarin, one of the lead investigators said on Sunday.

The United Nations independent commission of inquiry on Syria has not yet seen evidence of government forces having used chemical weapons, which are banned under international law, said commission member Carla Del Ponte.

"Our investigators have been in neighboring countries interviewing victims, doctors and field hospitals and, according to their report of last week which I have seen, there are strong, concrete suspicions but not yet incontrovertible proof of the use of sarin gas, from the way the victims were treated," Del Ponte said in an interview with Swiss-Italian television.

"This was use on the part of the opposition, the rebels, not by the government authorities," she added, speaking in Italian.

<snip>

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/05/us-syria-crisis-un-idUSBRE94409Z20130505

Do some homework instead of just confirming your own confirmation bias.'

You are just not well informed at fucking all.

[Ishoutandscream2]

70. Aren't you precious?

Such a kind and decent soul. I hope you don't talk to people like that face to face. It won't get you anywhere.

[sendero]

102. And be sure..

... to use fancy terms like "confirmation bias" when you have fuck all with regards to the facts.

[LostOne4Ever]

96. +infinity! (nt)

[KamaAina]

29. Believe it or not, napalm is not considered a chemical weapon.

Neither, for that matter, is white phosphorus.

[Aerows]

54. What?

Oh wait, our allies use it. Of course it's just fine. FFS.

[AtheistCrusader]

48. THEN YOU HAVE NOT BEEN PAYING ATTENTION.

The UN concluded back in May, that the attack in March was the work of the REBELS using SARIN.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

17. We don't know if Assad used them!

Therein lies the rub.

[Tx4obama]

21. Yes, we do. Go listen to what Kerry just said a bit ago on TV. n/t

[Fantastic Anarchist]

24. LMAO ...

Have you tried stand-up comedy?

[former9thward]

40. Kerry is very selective when it comes to chemical weapons.

When the rebels use them he turns a blind eye. http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/05/us-syria-crisis-un-idUSBRE94409Z20130505

[totodeinhere]

42. Just like we "knew" that Saddam used WMD's after Colin Powell told us he did. n/t

[woo me with science]

97. So familiar in the ear...

"We know where the rockets were launched from, and at what time. We know where they landed, and when. We know rockets came only from regime-controlled areas and went only to opposition-controlled or contested neighborhoods..."

"We know where they are. They are in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad."
-- Donald Rumsfeld, March 30, 2003

"We know that the regime has them; we know that as the regime collapses we will be led to them."
--Tony Blair, April 8, 2003

"We have high confidence that they have weapons of mass destruction. This is what this war was about and is about."
--Ari Fleischer, April 10, 2003

And yet...

Why thwart the UN inspection? Why the rush? Does this smell right? http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023567176

[The_Casual_Observer]

49. They have high confidence. For what it's worth

[Bluenorthwest]

89. That's an actual term with meaning, it is a level below certainty and thus is not certainty

[Democracyinkind]

101. Does your reply not eerily remind you of the debate in 2003?

I remember this exact exchange, Iraq, Powell. Does this notion not caution you? Is it, in the end, all a question of trust? Should it be?

[DirkGently]

32. "We" are not letting "Assad" "kill all the kids."

That framing is inaccurate on several levels.

We don't know who killed who with what. We could wait for the U.N. to finish its assessment for a start.

We don't know that even if Assad's people used chemical weapons, that it was authorized.

We don't have any reason to believe we can stop the war, or Assad, or chemical weapons, with the limited "punitive strike" proposed.

We don't have any reasonable expectation that we could fully engage in the Syrian civil war with the result of saving "kids" from either side.

We do not have a clear ally in the conflict. Islamic militants make up a sizeable portion of the the rebel side.

The rebel side are not behaving according to any rules of "normative" conflict either, what with the eating enemies' livers on camera and so forth.

How is this situation different from the proposal that we suddenly needed to effect "regime change" in Iraq on the basis Hussein had / had used chemical weapons? If it isn't, how did that work out?

None of this framing is accurate. There is zero basis to conclude any Assad-killed kids will be saved on the basis of any warfare conducted by the United States in Syria.

[Tx4obama]

37. A link below

White House Releases Report on Use of Chemical Weapons in Syria

http://www.c-span.org/uploadedFiles/Content/Documents/USGassessmentonSyria%281%29.pdf

[DirkGently]

39. Wow. Two pages of vague conclusory babble.

"Consistent with, but not exclusive to, nerve gas?"

Why not wait for the U.N. inspectors? Why follow so closely in Bush's U.N.-inspector-rejecting footsteps? The optics alone are horrible.

There is no case for the theory that an attack by the U.S. upon Syria will save children from nerve gas.

[The_Casual_Observer]

50. This is almost as good as the Niger dossier!

[Aerows]

53. They have yellow cake and aluminum tubes!

Fer crying out loud.

[The_Casual_Observer]

59. And don't forget a pinch of the anthrax in this vile that isn't really anthrax.

[Aerows]

69. And everyone that got tried for it

Oh wait, after 2002, that seemed to ... not be that important.

[jessie04]

66. Real funny...I'll bet those victims of SARIN or VX are laughing too.

oh that's right...they are dead.

[Aerows]

68. It's not funny

to have a nation manipulated with threats of Anthrax which is exactly what happened after 911. You couldn't do a damn thing for months without "Anthrax" being screamed.

Then suddenly, it went away. All mention of it in the news. Do you know who got charged with the Anthrax attacks? Was there a big trial?

Who was put on trial and sentenced for the Anthrax attack that paralyzed the nation with fear, do you remember?

[frylock]

88. is that really any worse than death by a tomahawk cruise missle?

i'll never understand the selective outrage at certain methods of killing, as if our methods are somehow humane.

[Aerows]

34. There have been plenty of campaigns

that included killing children with chemical weapons. I'd suggest you look up "White Phosphorus" to find out how horrible that one is. But hey, we can't just stand by where there are perfectly good profits to be made for the MIC! How can we stand aside and watch people get killed by products that aren't our own! Horror!

If that sounds harsh, it is meant to sound that way. We have been in the war business for too long, and our own population suffers for it as surely as if the bombs were dropped here. They starve to death slowly, die of a lack of health care quietly, but it is no less allowing our own people to die.

You really need to think about what is going on here before you start looking at the mote in your neighbor's eye.

[woo me with science]

38. And the next time you hear someone screaming in the house down the street,

will you lob a grenade through the window?

Spare us. The war propaganda has no credibility anymore.

[SomethingFishy]

41. Right, we should only let children be killed with conventional weapons

as they have been for the last 2 years...

[xocet]

52. Does this indicate that you are now against Pres. Obama's drone program?

Previously, the killing of Anwar al-Awlaki's son, Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, seemed to be fine with you:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2901446

In that post, your information seems to be mostly incorrect:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023263738



At any rate, which moral position do you want? You cannot adopt both positions.

[Bluenorthwest]

91. Wow. Tx4 you need to explain your various positions on the killing of kids....

that link shows you on the side of drone the all, blame the kid for having the wrong father. Such duplicity is seriously amoral.

[Maedhros]

55. The jury is still out on whether Assad ordered these attacks.

The UN inspectors have not finished their investigation and have not released their findings. Your assertion that Assad is responsible is incorrect.

And, if there were videos available of all the children that have died from this Administration's drone attacks I would urge you to watch them as well. If this Administration was really concerned about killing children, it would stop "signature strikes" and "double taps" and it would not designate all military-aged males as "combatants."

You can't reserve your outrage only for those atrocities you decide to pay attention to. Your post is nothing more than a refurbished cry of "Remember the Maine!"

[bread_and_roses]

57. and I recommend looking back at the photos of the children we killed in Iraq

- when we bombed them. And photos of the kids we're killing in Afghanistan and elsewhere now. All of those were and are supposed to be "targeted" strikes too.

If my child is dead, do you think I'm going to care if it was Assad or the US who killed him or her? Pretending this is about innocent children is just that - pretending. You don't bomb kids to save them.

[TalkingDog]

58. Oh lord. The "WON'T SOMEBODY THINK OF THE CHILDREN???" carrot. Still waiting for the stick.

n/t

[awoke_in_2003]

99. Don't worry...

it will be lodged up our ass soon.

[Ocelot]

60. Your claim is without merit

Zero evidence that Assad ordered any chemical attacks has been presented so far. By anyone.

[Tx4obama]

63. Military PLANES dropped napalm type chemical

Caution graphic images

VIDEO: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-23892594

[Ocelot]

93. Jerusalem Post: "ISRAEL may be behind Syrian chemical weapons use"

"We don’t know what the chain of custody is. This could’ve been an Israeli false flag operation, it could’ve been an opposition in Syria... or it could’ve been an actual use by Bashar Assad. But we certainly don’t know with the evidence we’ve been given. And what I’m hearing from the intelligence community is that that evidence is really flakey," retired Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, Colin Powell's former chief of staff, told Cenk Uygur in an interview with Current TV.

http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Israel-may-be-behind-Syrian-chemical-weapons-use-312051

[ZombieHorde]

61. Totally! We should be ones killing those kids! nt

[KurtNYC]

72. Then watch the videos of the rebels eating body parts on YouTube

Videos aren't facts. They are good at stirring emotions and creating impressions.

We know almost nothing and certainly not enough to pick one nasty side over the other. What kind of gas? where was it made? who launched it the day after UN weapons inspectors arrived in Syria?

And btw, did we ever figure out the answers to those same questions about the anthrax attacks in the USA in 2001? No. So we would we accept some foreign country claiming to have those answers and then deciding the solution was bombing the shit out us ?

[yurbud]

74. we'll save kids by killing them? Is that from the Gen. Westmoreland school of childcare?

[obxhead]

79. Do you buy products made in China?

Are you as vocal and posting about the thousands of children that die in factories building that worthless crap?

Its not the same thing, but then again this strike won't be about innocent children. We have proven over and over and over that the US does not care about adults, much less children.

[eridani]

100. The rebels are the ones with the slogan "Christians to Beirut; Alawites to the grave"

It's entirely possible that Assad's side was responsible for the chemical attacks, but rebel groups have that capacity as well.

[sabrina 1]

6. Jesus H. Christ you're right, just a few Bombs falling on your country, what could

possibly go wrong??? A few kids here and there, remember little Ali on the first day of the 'smart bombing' but, he was lucky he only lost his arms and legs, and his baby sister, mom and dad.

It was all in a good cause, I'm sure they agreed.

What utter garbate, the hate IS the bombs. Why the hell do we hate people so much in this country. We are killing people EVERY SINGLE DAy.

Just a few bombs!! I thought you were kidding, but hey, they're not falling on THIS country so what the hell. Just a few brown people.

[cthulu2016]

9. Gee, why would you have thought I was kidding?

(Of course the OP is not serious. "Diplomacy by other means" is a famous description of war. Bombing other countries is a definitive act of war. But, amazingly, there are folks here and now pushing the bizarre, "bombing isn't war" mind-fuck. Which is shocking in its cynicism.)

[cali]

16. of course s/he was kidding. ack.

[Supersedeas]

30. P-E-A-R-L H-A-R-B-0-R

Just a Japanese diplomatic mission.

[HooptieWagon]

8. Good lord...bombing isn't war?

Maybe you should tell that to the civilians killed by errant bombs. There will be some civilian deaths. You might argue its "worth it". The victims families might argue otherwise. But, bombing Syria will not eliminate chemical weapons. It will not prevent their future use. It WILL likely enrage and embolden Assad, so he may use them more. It WILL escalate the conflict, possibly to nearby countries of Turkey, Jordan, and Israel (all US allies). So what exactly is bombing supposed to accomplish? It has no strategic or tactical value. All it is is a testosterone-fueled "my dick is bigger than yours" statement. For that, civilians will die. Pretty fucking stupid and senseless.

[Celefin]

13. Did you miss the OP's sarcasm or did I miss your sarcasm?

[HooptieWagon]

20. Evidently I missed OP's sarcasm. Oops. nt

[kentuck]

11. bombing is "punishment"

torture is "enhanced interrogation"

poison gas is "mischief"...

and so on..

[ladyayache]

12. Just a few bombs like Iraq? like Afghan? like Africa? l

And where does it stop? I remember when they started bombing Iraq, they couldn't even hit the right military targets! The country is destroyed because of all the bombings!!!
And they were just going in to get Saddam. You know the big bad guy that used to be everyone's friend when he helped us fight the war with Iran you know the country that used to be a democracy until we turned that over. It is the same thing all over again. How the Iraq people were coming over here asking us to topple Saddam for them. Yes what's happening there is horrific, but what will happen after we get involved will be even more horrific for us,for them, for everyone! Think first !! I'm appalled John Kerry is driving us into this! He is no better than the Bush/Cheney Republicans.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

15. I was about to go to town on you!

Thank God I read the rest of your post!

[Hydra]

23. Sad that we need sarcasm tags these days, isn't it? n/t

[Fantastic Anarchist]

25. Well, I got it once I read the post.

By the title alone, I was ready for blood!

[1-Old-Man]

51. Same here.

[Divernan]

64. When in doubt, I always check profiles to see if their favorite group is BOG.

[geek tragedy]

18. A bombing campaign in someone else's war means you're participating in a war.

Anyhow, the punishment for poison gas should not be doled out by the US, but rather by the Sunnis inside Syria.

[curlyred]

22. Take it to Congress

[Tx4obama]

28. Congress is on vacation. They do not want to vote on the Syria issue...

... that's why they haven't rushed back to DC.

[curlyred]

95. Can't the president call them back?

Emergency session. Force the vote.

[piratefish08]

26. sounds familiar.....

[backscatter712]

31. It's a fireworks show.

Of course, the U.S. isn't intending to invade or put boots on the ground.

We're making a big kabuki show of puffing our chests, rattling our sabers and "looking tough", so as to impress the plebes and politicians around the world.

The truth is that this attack is itself a show - a dangerous, lethal show carried out with live munitions, but a show nonetheless. We're not even trying to gain the advantage of surprise, so the Syrians are right now evacuating their bases and hunkering down. When the cruise missiles hit, nobody will be there.

But the cruise missile hits will be lauded as a Tough Response to those Weapons of Mass Destruction.

[nilram]

36. Yah, the US gets bombed all the time and doesn't call it an act of war. They're just being sissies.

It's just a few, strategically dropped bombs. Maybe collateral damage, but the Red Crescent will be there in no time to get some pastes to the survivors. They were probably some dumb old buildings you've wanted to tear down anyway, and some fathers and sons and mothers and daughters that were getting on your nerves. Happens to us all the time but we wouldn't call it War. More like roughhousing.

[DeSwiss]

43. K&R

[woo me with science]

44. "Humanitarian air strikes." Straight out of Orwell. nt

[Spitfire of ATJ]

45. I love it when they claim it's either attack or "do nothing".

[Divernan]

65. Kerry's warning: we must take action or lose ALL credibility with EVERY OTHER COUNTRY!

What a crock. As anyone who's had the opportunity to travel abroad knows, the US has been progressively losing credibility for decades, greatly accelerating under W, with a brief pause as the rest of the world shared we progressives' misbegotten, short-lived hopes and dreams for Obama, and then continuing its downward trend/race to the bottom.

[Fuddnik]

77. Was he against it before he was for it?

He lost his credibility when he conceded in 2004.

[Divernan]

82. He was for "it"(action), but Obama hadn't yet told him what "it" would be.

So what we heard from Kerry was a blind, unconditional endorsement of whatever Obama eventually does. Pretty damn pathetic, but as Secretary of State, what choices does Kerry have? Either blindly endorse, resign the position in protest, or disagree w/Obama and be summarily removed.

[yurbud]

78. Kerry just shat away any moral capital he had left

From his Vietnam protests and his pursuit of Iran/Contra

[Bluenorthwest]

90. The only war Kerry ever opposed was the one he was in.

nt

[avaistheone1]

81. We are in a race to beat our own bottom to a new even lower level.

Out of the way!

[Spitfire of ATJ]

94. Maybe he should go play "Decision Points" at the Bush Library.

[AtheistCrusader]

46. 'Extermination'

[Bohemianwriter]

47. So what's the difference?

Dropping bombs for peace is like fucking for virginity...

Any non-vet who opposed the Iraq/Afghanistan fiascoes should refrain themselves from uttering a single word of support for the "bomb dropping" campaign, since then it might be YOU who they will look to use as cannon fodder.

Or your kids!

[mike_c]

56. "bombing people who cannot bomb you back..."

...is a crime against humanity. It's a war crime. The sort of thing that an American chief justice once called the crime that contains all other crimes.

[blkmusclmachine]

62. Here you go ...

[doc03]

67. I have yet to talk to anyone Democrat or Republican that

wants anything to do with Syria.

[Jackpine Radical]

71. We really need to get into this one.

As Dennis Kucinich pointed out, Al Qaeda lacks an air force. As do the Mujehedin, I might add.

[kpete]

73. in our name (taxpayer $$$):

TOO MUCH PIE for the military
at TOO HIGH a price for mankind

peace, kp

[Glassunion]

75. Exactly! Great post...

Well written.

[obxhead]

76. Who exactly appointed Obama judge, jury, and executioner?

By what right do we have to bomb or missile strike another sovereign nation that imposes no direct harm to us or our allies?

[iamthebandfanman]

80. Dur DOh We Cant get nuffin right!

Cause everytime someone shoots a missile at a military target they ALWAYS hit as many civilians as they can !

Gee DUr Golly WE Jus cant seem to do nuttin right here in da America!





Yeah, lets just say afraid of doing what needs to be done because of the actions of our fucked up previous few republican presidents WHO LIED and MANIPULATED to get us to INVADE AND OCCUPY a country that WASNT EVEN ASKING FOR HELP.

[HangOnKids]

92. Word Salad

Please do not try to clarify, I found ignore for you. Ahhhhh.

[carla]

83. Are you really so

cliueless? You don't even deserve a response...sheesh.

[truebluegreen]

84. Similar to irregular verbs:

(or descriptors actually)
I am firm.
You are stubborn.
He is a pig-headed fool.

[Bosonic]

86. It's actually a 'Kinetic Military Action'

Please use the correct terminology.

[randome]

87. Accuracy should always be at the forefront of a debate. Hyperbole need not apply.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]

[JoeyT]

98. Fortunately all the people that regularly

defend drone strikes and double tapping have turned up and set you straight on why we can't possibly allow innocents to be harmed.

[DrDan]

103. thanks for that disclaimer - and you are correct - it is often hard to recognize the satire without

a roadmap

[sendero]

104. What cracks me up ...

... about this whole mess is that folks who support this non-war action refuse to acknowledge where it could EASILY lead. Russia and Iran are strong allies of the Syrian administration and the idea that "no one messes with America" might have had credibility before we shot our wad fucking around like idiots in Iraq.

If we go on a "bombing campaign" there is absolutely no assurance that we will not be starting something we'd rather not have to finish.