Kerry: Bombing other countries is not "Going to war."

[cthulu2016]

The increasingly embarrassing John Kerry is... well, increasingly embarrassing.

In his Senate testimony (going on currently- Tuesday afternoon) he said that people who have served, like himself and Hagel and McCain, know that what Obama is requesting is "nothing like going to war."

Anyone who thinks dropping bombs on the assets of the government of a foreign country for the purpose of punishing that government (and most likely killing human beings thereby) is not "going to war" has no business holding any power or responsibility.

And since Obama doesn't rein in the Kerry Show we are left to assume Kerry continues to speak for the administration.

This is very sad.

[stevenleser]

1. :-( nt

[roguevalley]

233. it would be for me if I were targeted and my family killed. kerry is a sell out.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

2. Orwell would be proud, Mr. Kerry.

You're making me embarrassed that I voted for you.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

246. Remember that time in 1941 when Japan didn't go to war with the US?

[Psephos]

254. Perfect response. n/t

[Hell Hath No Fury]

268. Nope, doesn't look like war to me at all.

[darkangel218]

3. dropping bombs on the assets of the government of a foreign country for the purpose of punishing ..

The gov you are referring to has and is committing genocide against their own people. Not only that, they are using weapons of mass destruction , specifically chemical weapons.

They have violated the international law by doing that.

Assad's is a monster and must be stopped.

[cthulu2016]

9. That is as may be, but you you suggesting it isn't war?

Whether there is good reason to bomb Syria or no reason to bomb Syria, bombing people is war.

The alternative is that it is terrorism, which I assume is not what we are aiming for.

[darkangel218]

20. Who cares about semantics? It will be a military intervention with no boots on the ground.

Its like arguing weather the mass killing was a genocide or not.

What matters is that we can try and stop Assad from mass killing even more thousands of people.

[jakeXT]

24. Unless Al-Nusra gets hold of some chemical weapons, as Kerry explained /nt

[darkangel218]

29. Nothing is 100% proof.

Chances will be taken.

But not taking any would only keep the status quo, and we all know what that is.

[avaistheone1]

245. We don't have anything certain in terms of proof. So do we need to rush to war - throwing bombs

like Bush did in Iraq without verifiable data?

The status quo in Syria is not the US's problem.

The world community does not want to put any skin in this game - so that tells you how everyone feels about this.

[karynnj]

129. Which as Kerry did not say could happen if we attack or not

- and I assume if it were to happen, that WOULD meet the criteria of national security and Obama would respond.

(It was an error - or being too honest on Kerry's part.)

[Iggo]

35. John Kerry cares about semantics, that's who.

Otherwise he wouldn't be bending over backwards to convince you that it's not war.

[darkangel218]

40. Im not posting here to defend Kerrys words.

Im simply stating he and POTUS are standing for what is right>

[tazkcmo]

152. I know why you are posting here.

Because you want lots of bombs dropped on Syria so you feel better. So you feel like something was done. Because anything short of dropping a LOT of bombs to destroy their airports, aircraft, military infrastructure AND the etcetera is "turning a blind eye". In other words, because you get off on it.

[AllyCat]

248. As I said down stream, it's a apparently not war when

someone sits in a chair and pushes a button. Watch out, we both may get put on ignore.

[Bandit]

203. If it were Russia or China we were talking about would you still be chomping at the bit

to "Punish" them by dropping bombs on their people?

[darkangel218]

261. This is not about punishing the country.

you cant possibly be serious. Do you know the difference between punishing a regim and punishing a country??
do you really think Syrian people like to be gassed and burnt alive by Hassad?

[delrem]

256. God save us from you oh so "moral" avengers.

cyclops.

[VanillaRhapsody]

44. did we declare war in Kosovo?

[Iggo]

65. The Kosovo War?

Wasn't that NATO?

[VanillaRhapsody]

122. Until Bill Clinton stepped up the game..

but we never declared war...thus your previous premise is false.

[Iggo]

127. And what was my premise again?

[VanillaRhapsody]

130. Otherwise he wouldn't be bending over backwards to convince you that it's not war.

[Iggo]

144. You're right. I'm wrong.

I should have answered "People who want you to believe that going to war isn't really going to war, that's who."

Thanks for the heads-up.

[LittleBlue]

139. Look at the knots they're twisting themselves into

to justify this illogical nonsense.

[Iggo]

145. Crazy, isn't it?

[darkangel218]

262. I bet its amusing to you.

some try to have a decent, respectful conversation, but to no avail.

Whats the point to justify one's position if its only met with insults and hyperboles. Gah...

I personally will not answer one more single reply re: Syria.

Enjoy your laughs.

[progressoid]

226. OFFS

We haven't officially declared a "war" in 60 years.

Death and destruction by any other name....

[tazkcmo]

150. It matters to those of us that fight these non-wars

You are awfully enthusiastic about this whole mess. In another thread you called for the bombing of all their airports, aircraft and military infrastructure. You even want the "etcetera" bombed as if the other stuff wasn't enough. Way beyond anything Obama has called for. I'll respond with a link after you deny you said this.

[totodeinhere]

201. And then this afternoon in his testimony Kerry couldn't even completely rule out

boots on the ground.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/03/john-kerry-boots-on-the-ground_n_3861860.html

[delrem]

258. That's right. This is step one of a many step program called "regime change".

And everyone, including the warmongers, knows it.

eta: "step one" after the ground laid by HRC's "Friends of Syria" jihadists.

[AllyCat]

235. Push button war! What could be more video game-like?

[darkangel218]

236. Bye.

[Carolina]

52. we've had some monsters in the

oval office, too! And Assad used to be our guy until he got too big for his britches. History is your friend; read and learn http://www.commondreams.org/view/2013/08/31-1

[darkangel218]

58. So Assads is not who we thought he was.

Live and learn.

But that doesn't excuse turning a blind eye to what he's doing.

[Carolina]

63. Oh puhleeze

Do we know what really happened, i.e. who was behind the use of the weapons?

And have you ever heard of blowback? bin Laden, Noriega, Saddam...

[darkangel218]

85. Yes we do. The whole world apparently does.

Read the news.

[Carolina]

103. yeah right, and that's why the whole world

Last edited Tue Sep 3, 2013, 09:56 PM - Edit history (1)

supports military intervention and we have a coalition of the willling

Read and learn: http://www.commondreams.org/view/2013/08/31-1

[darkangel218]

107. LOL!...

[Carolina]

109. yeah

your thoughts about war are laughable!

[darkangel218]

111. So are yours about ignoring WMDs and genocide.

[Unknown Beatle]

148. So when the CIA

helps Saddam Hussein use gas, it's okay. But when puppets go rogue and use gas, it's not okay.

Kill 100,000 people using conventional weapons and it's okay. Kill 1000 people using gas, it's an atrocity.

Hang 'em, rape 'em, shoot 'em, stab 'em, bomb 'em, drown 'em, choke 'em, burn 'em, electrocute 'em, and it's only war.

Gas 'em and HOLY FUCK! KILL THE BASTARD!

What's wrong with this picture?

[darkangel218]

168. Did you read my posts? i said two wrongs dont make a right.

But anyway, POTUS seems to have made up his mind. There will be an intervention.

[tazkcmo]

180. And you couldn't be any happier.

If two wrongs don't make a right then why the cheer leading for more death? Please don't use LOL or Blind Eye in your response.

[tazkcmo]

163. So why were you against the Iraq war?

You seem to want Assad held to a higher standard than Hussein. The only difference I see between these two instances is the letter after our president's name each time.

[tazkcmo]

158. And now the LOLing

Blind Eye, LOL, Bomb. That sum it up?

[frylock]

88. it's become evident that Kerry is not who we thought he was either.

[darkangel218]

92. He is exactly who i thought he was.

[frylock]

100. well good for you!

Support the Raytheon!

[tazkcmo]

165. She owns stock. n/t

[Ocelot]

188. Interesting, so the Kerrys are war profiteers.

Correction, they're "action profiteers" (my bad)

[tazkcmo]

190. Get it right!

They might even be insignificant "LIMITED action" profiteers.

[mazzarro]

126. "Not who we thought he was?"

And the US renditioned "terrorists" to his government for interrogation?

[darkangel218]

133. Yes, he is not someone who can change their way.

When Kerry had dinner with him, the admins obviously thought there was a chance Assad would turn around.

We were wrong, he is a sick person.

There is no possibility for negotiation with such monster.

[tazkcmo]

155. Again, Blind Eye

Only bombs will do. All else is a Blind Eye. Do you own stock in Raytheon?

[karynnj]

132. Assad was NOT "our" guy, he war Russia's and Iran's

We tried to change that - but it never happened.

[totodeinhere]

204. I thought he was Nancy Pelosi's guy.

[img][/img]

[karynnj]

218. No - he wasn't.

That is a similar picture from a diplomatic trip that Pelosi was on. Dodd and Kerry visited on the same break - with a list of questions that the State department gave them. NONE of these people were there because they loved Assad. They were there to try to improve relations -- to avoid a future war. They were not successful, but trying is better than not trying.

Since when have Democrats decided that speaking to countries we are not in agreement with is a bad thing.

[totodeinhere]

223. So if speaking to countries we are not in agreement is a good thing, and I agree that it is,

why aren't we doing that now? More speaking would be a good thing but it looks like it's bombs away instead.

[Carolina]

221. Really

Read a bit about where some of weapons came from!

[MNBrewer]

64. Genocide?

Not by any reasonable definition of genocide. Just killing a bunch of people at random is NOT a genocide.

[Dawgs]

82. Ask the people of Afganistan or Iraq if the bombing or killing ever stops.

There is no excuse not to be informed about war and how everything about it only adds to the suffering. Adding weapons and bombs has never STOPPED anything.

Well, there was that atomic bomb thing. Good thing no one was hurt when they were used.

[grahamhgreen]

91. ...which they admit the bombing will not do....

[Swede Atlanta]

128. Dropping bombs on anyone, regardless of reason, is an act of war....

it may be justifiable war but it is war. No discussion around semantics is needed.

Here is the definition of "war" from Dictionary.com

war1 [wawr] Show IPA noun, verb, warred, war·ring, adjective
noun
1.
a conflict carried on by force of arms, as between nations or between parties within a nation; warfare, as by land, sea, or air.
2.
a state or period of armed hostility or active military operations: The two nations were at war with each other.
3.
a contest carried on by force of arms, as in a series of battles or campaigns: the War of 1812.
4.
armed fighting, as a science, profession, activity, or art; methods or principles of waging armed conflict: War is the soldier's business.
5.
active hostility or contention; conflict; contest: a war of words.

Dropping bombs or shooting missiles involves a force of arms by one party on another.

[zeemike]

140. How do you know Assad is a monster?

What you mean to say is that you have been told Assad is a monster....or that you heard Assad is a monster....of if Assad is a monster...

But some seem to think that if they state things as fact that they personally could not know it makes a better case for war or punishment...it is like declaring someone guilty before the trial or any evidence is given.

[darkangel218]

143. Take a look at the footage of his" work."

You will see it for yourself.

[zeemike]

159. So you saw him launching the weapons?

Or giving the orders to do it?
Please link to that video, I would like to see it to.

[darkangel218]

166. Lol.

Any hyperbole to win.

What's next, ask me when am I going to deploy?

Lol!!

[tazkcmo]

177. No

I won't bother with that again because you're happy enough to cheer lead from the rear. Darkangel is an appropriate name for your attitude. It reeks of death.

[zeemike]

207. There is no hyperbole at all...I was dead serious

We error when we speak about things that we don't know about as if we did.
It just strikes me as an attempt to intimidate like a salesman will do to make the sale.

[tazkcmo]

142. Moved to a new thread I see.

I understand you were against the Iraq war even though Hussein was an equally monstrous man that gassed his own people with WMD's. So why are you for this one?

[whatchamacallit]

4. What a tool.

[JRLeft]

5. I am not surprised he made this ridiculous assertion.

[Arcanetrance]

6. Technically I would think that qualifies as an act of war

[Autumn]

7. People dying aren't people dying. Makes sense

in some alternate reality.

[JRLeft]

12. The department of death determines what is and isn't war.

[1-Old-Man]

8. Disgraceful.

And that SOB knows better.

[VanillaRhapsody]

47. Yeah he does....and that "SOB" served his country

I think he has earned a right to his opinion.

[MNBrewer]

68. Need someone have served in the military to have an opinion?

My! Look at the time! Are we at the Military Dictatorship stage ALREADY?

[VanillaRhapsody]

113. no but it means that you deserve more than to be called an SOB for having one...

show some respect.

[LittleBlue]

141. Donald Rumsfeld served in the US Navy

Does he deserve respect? How dare DU disrespect such a brave man who served his country!

[VanillaRhapsody]

149. With Donald Rumsfeld....we found out he WAS wrong....

not just you THINK Kerry is...you don't know that yet do you...

So laugh all you want.

[tazkcmo]

174. Respect is eanred

and quickly lost when you say crap like bombing isn't war.

[MNBrewer]

197. Know who else served in the military? These guys!

?

[Carolina]

69. opinion is the

operative word.

Fucktard is parsing words and pushing for an aggressive strike against a nation that has done nothing to the US. So while he has earned his opinion and is free to express it... he is using a position of power to advance it and promote war. Therein is the rub!

[VanillaRhapsody]

114. Oh and now he is a "fucktard" because he has an opinion that is different than yours?

I still say he deserves the respect of his service if not the respect of his current office. I think I see who are the SOB's and Fucktards here...

[Bradical79]

176. He knows what going to war is

Kerry isn't stupid. What he's doing isn't giving an honest opinion, but rather trying to push a dishonest nonsensical definition of war to make an act of war more palatable to a war weary public.

[Orrex]

10. What if another country bombs the US? Would we not regard it as an act of war?

[broiles]

23. Should we have viewed Pearl Harbor differently?

Why did we get so upset that they bombed a few government assets and killed a few military types? Can't we take a joke.
For those who can't this is sarcasm.

[David Krout]

146. +1

[David__77]

11. It flies in the face of common sense.

So, provided you don't (openly) put your own soldiers on the soil of the country you are attacking, there is no "war." That's an interesting concept - one with which I strongly disagree. They're attempting some sort of postmodern war.

[cthulu2016]

13. If we had killer robots we could avoid "going to war" altogether

under this bold new formulation.

[David__77]

18. It's code for: "It will only kill THEM and not US."

Of course, even that is not right, as events would prove...

[VanillaRhapsody]

50. and if he takes out Assad's chemical weapons...will you eat your words?

[Carolina]

60. chemical weapons that came from the

west. Read and learn!

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2013/08/31-1

[VanillaRhapsody]

121. So?

that wasn't this administration....

I have read "commondreams" before I know their stance....

[totodeinhere]

119. Bombing Assad's chemical weapons stocks won't "take them out."

But what it might do is disperse them to a wider area and then we would really have a humanitarian crisis affecting not only innocent Syrian civilians but potentially civilians in several adjoining countries.

The only way to effectively take out his chemical weapons would involve boots on the ground and the administration has explicitly ruled out that option.

[VanillaRhapsody]

185. We have been working on methods to neutralize them for over a decade..

I dont think they have ruled out any options at this point.

[totodeinhere]

199. I would have disagreed with you before Kerry opened his big mouth. But since

he failed to completely rule out boots on the ground during today's testimony now I'm not so sure. My comment about ruling out boots on the ground was made before Kerry said this.

[VanillaRhapsody]

200. before you opened "your big mouth" you mean?

[totodeinhere]

202. Isn't that what forums like this are for? n/t

[VanillaRhapsody]

205. then wasn't the hearing where John Kerry was supposed to open his?

[totodeinhere]

217. The difference is that I am an Internet poster. On the other hand Mr. Kerry

is the Secretary of State of the United States. What he says has more more impact than anything I say.

[tazkcmo]

183. Take 'em out where?

To dinner? Blowing them up, IF we know where they all are, would only release them into they air resulting in, wait for it, a chemical attack. There is not "out" or "away".

[The Second Stone]

14. When one country bombs another country, it is an act of war

even if it is justified. In this instance, if Syria gassed its own people, that would be a causis belli (cause for war) and justified. Whether it is a wise decision is another matter. I don't see how bombing innocent civilians punishes the military and/or government leaders who did the gassing. Bombing the military and government leaders might punish them.

[kentuck]

15. Who actually believes that bullshit?

I'm sure the country being bombed thinks the same thing?

[99th_Monkey]

196. Notice he says "OIHER countries"? But we know if someone bombs the USA?

Well, that would be "AN ACT OF WAR!!!"

[ProSense]

16. An act of war is "not going to war."

He was talking about a ground war.

Drone strikes are bombings, and these are not the same as ground wars. The 9/11 bombings were an act of war. The retaliation was the United States going to war with the Taliban in Afghanistan.

The difference is not hard to understand.

BILL CLINTON

—Iraq (1993): Launched cruise missiles into Baghdad, hitting Iraqi intelligence headquarters, in retaliation for assassination plot against President George H.W. Bush.

<...>

—Iraq (1996): Launched cruise missiles at targets in southern Iraq in retaliation against attacks on U.S. jets enforcing no-fly zones to protect Iraqi minorities as authorized by U.N. Security Council resolution.

<...>

—Iraq (1998): Launched cruise missiles and airstrikes on a number of Baghdad targets to punish Saddam Hussein for not complying with U.N. chemical weapons inspections as required under U.N. Security Council resolutions.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/crash-course-a-guide-to-30-years-of-us-military-strikes-against-other-nations.php

Did anyone consider Clinton's bombings of Iraq as "going to war" with Iraq?

[cthulu2016]

22. Fuck yes! What sort of MORON did not consider

Clinton's bombings of Iraq as "going to war" with Iraq. Of course it was.

What sort of (expletive) could possibly think otherwise?


The Orwellian shit has never been deeper.

[ProSense]

26. Ridiculous. Clinton took those actions without even consulting Congress, and most

Americans didn't even know about them.


"Fuck yes! What sort of MORON did not consider Clinton's bombings of Iraq as 'going to war' with Iraq. Of course it was.

"What sort of MORON" considers a drone strike "going to war?

Is a strike the same as a ground war?

This is nothing but willful ignorance.

[cthulu2016]

33. Prosense: What sort of MORON considers a drone strike "going to war?"

A moron who is, despite his disability, not morally insane.

[ProSense]

53. So if a drone strike

Prosense: What sort of MORON considers a drone strike "going to war?"

A moron who is, despite his disability, not morally insane.

...takes out a building housing airplanes, that's going to war?

Is that the same as a ground war?

[cthulu2016]

71. Yes, it is going to war.

As to your second question, who gives a shit? That isn't the topic of the OP.

If you think that "ground war" is the new definition of "war" then add it to the Newspeak dictionary. (And good luck telling the UK that neither the Battle of Britain nor Trafalgar were real war!)

[ProSense]

72. That's absolute nonsense. Taking out a building is not the same as a ground war. n/t

[cthulu2016]

79. Wowza! That's Baghdad Bob territory.

The phrase "ground war" is not part of this OP, except in some imaginary version you seem to have concocted.

[ProSense]

83. "The phrase 'ground war' is not part of this OP"

Like I said, willful ignorance is what this is all about.

[Fuddnik]

102. On who's part?

[tazkcmo]

187. Love how you make shit up.

He said "war", not "ground war". You said that. You do not equal Kerry.

[Ichingcarpenter]

96. Kerry Won’t Rule Out Ground Troops

WASHINGTON — Secretary of State John Kerry refused to absolutely rule out the possibility of U.S. troops on the ground in Syria on Tuesday.

During a hearing on Syria in front of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, committee chairman Sen. Bob Menendez asked Kerry whether there would be any possibility of ground troops eventually entering Syria at some point.
The administration has “no desire” to do that, Kerry said.

But, “In the event Syria imploded for instance or in the event there was a threat of a chemical weapons cache falling into the hands of al-Nusra or someone else and it was clearly in the interest of our allies — all of us, the British, the French, and others,” Kerry said, “I don’t want to take off the table an option that might or might not be available to the president of the United States to secure our country.”
Kerry quickly walked it back


http://www.buzzfeed.com/rosiegray/kerry-wont-rule-out-ground-troops-in-syria

[AnotherMcIntosh]

105. Good point worth repeating: KERRY WON’T RULE OUT GROUND TROOPS

[tazkcmo]

189. But they aren't really ground troops

if we put them in hover crafts!

[Fuddnik]

77. Spinning like a tornado.

Droning a wedding or a funeral or a bunch of women and kids ain't war either.

A few tomahawks here and a few tomahawks there, and pretty soon you're talking serious peace!

[zeemike]

154. Well that is exactly what Japan did at Pearl Harbor.

there were no boots on the ground...so I guess it was not an act of war...and they did not "go to war" with us.

[tazkcmo]

172. It would be if it was our big building

housing our airplanes and it was Russia's drone. Of course Mr. Kerry didn't say "ground war", he said "war' but again, thanks for clarifying for us what he REALLY meant.

[cali]

41. actually, pro, only a MORON or abject partisan APOLOGIST

wouldn't consider drone strikes "going to war".

No, drone strikes or cruise missiles are not the same as a ground war. Both are making war.

To deny these FACTS, is not only willful ignorance, it's shameful, immoral and vile.

[ProSense]

55. "No, drone strikes or cruise missiles are not the same as a ground war."

There you go.

[tazkcmo]

192. But Kerry didn't say &quot;ground war&quot;

Prosense said ground war while Kerry just used the word "war" but thank golly Prosense is there to tell us what he REALLY meant because Kerry must not be all that articulate or something.

There you go

[avaistheone1]

104. Once we drop bombs, we are at "war"

war
wôr/
noun
noun: war;?plural noun: wars

1.
a state of armed conflict between different nations or states or different groups within a nation or state.


I suppose the dictionary is willfully ignorant too.

[totodeinhere]

125. You are haggling over mere semantics. Whether it's committing an act of war or going to war

the implications will be the same.

[NuclearDem]

137. Blowing up people or things on another nation's soil is going to war.

The very fact that you are arguing otherwise is evidence of how casual we are as a nation towards it.

[rug]

153. I hesitate to ask how you would define an act of sex.

A measured response?

A message?

An act necessary to maintain credibility?

A love note to North Korea?

"I did not go to war with that country!"

[tazkcmo]

167. I'm sure he appreciates

you clarifying what he said.

[tazkcmo]

170. Yes. n/t

[Union Scribe]

234. Spin, Level: Noah Webster. nt

[lumberjack_jeff]

17. I guess the "I was for it before I was against it" criticism had some validity.

[reformist2]

19. Kerry does such a good job playing the peacenik, that I forget he's a big fraud.

[Avalux]

21. Words are funny things, Mr. Kerry.

You may not use the word WAR when talking about dropping bombs on Syria, but they sure as hell will perceive it as an act of war. So will the UN.

[malaise]

25. So who decided that America has some fivine right to punish sovereign countries

I detest this fucking planet.

[NCTraveler]

27. You thought he has been speaking for someone/thing other than the administration?

"And since Obama doesn't reign in the Kerry Show we are left to assume Kerry continues to speak for the administration."

[fadedrose]

28. Sad indeed

When that lady protestor screamed out about not wanting to go to war, I got tears in my eyes.

I don't normally side with hecklers, but I did with this one...

And I have no one of draft age to worry about.....pity those who do because if this thing implodes, we need feet to put in those boots....

[fadedrose]

229. I think it may have been Gen. Zini that mentioned that we're short on troops...

Saw him say that we don't have enough boots to put on the ground because we are spread too thin already, and because of the sequester, we don't give the military enough money to have flights going over anywhere routinely.

Charlie Rangel the same day said that if we vote to go to 'Syria we have to reinstate the draft - that's why I said we need feet - just a badly worded sentence.

We are safe if everything goes smoothly, but if it doesn't, and we know it won't, we got big trouble..we should not go there because we lack troops...and I surmize from that that we'd get slaughtered if what Zini said was true.

Not to mention, it's more or less a religious war. Oh, and Al-Queda. What's your favorite reason for not going? I can't make up my mind there's so many.

If making billions on selling both sides weapons doesn't count, the MIC has nothing to gain.

[Dawson Leery]

30. Attacking a sovereign nation's military and populace is NOT an act of war?

Really Johnny?

[sibelian]

227. It's an act of...... (scrabbles through dictuionary, throws it away) PATRIOTISM.

... uhhhhh...

Policing?

... uhhhhh...

Humanity?

... uhhhhh...





Self-perception?

[WilliamPitt]

31. :headoven:

[LuvNewcastle]

32. Kerry obviously has no respect for Americans if he thinks we'll

believe that shit.

[derby378]

34. Technically, Bush 43 didn't "go to war" with Iraq, either

That's why Operation Iraqi Freedom vets aren't eligible for membership in VFW. That's also why we didn't break out the ration books and mobilize national industries for defense - that might have upset too many of Bush's friends at the country club.

[MindPilot]

36. It was sure as hell "WAR!" when Iraq bombed the World Trade Center.

Oh wait, it wasn't a country and they didn't use bombs.

But we've also declared "WAR!" on poverty and on drugs. Even Jimmy Carter referred to the energy crisis as "...the moral equivalent of war."

I guess "WAR!" is whatever whomever has the MIC-rophone says it is.

[Ichingcarpenter]

37. He sounds like Kissinger in fact

when he was in Brazil lately he praised him
and his book.


http://www.state.gov/secretary/remarks/2013/08/213088.htm

The War Criminal
Kissinger liked this type of talk when he illegally bombed Cambodia.

[The Stranger]

38. I have hated John Kerry since he refused to call out the Republicans' lies on the Iraq war.

He was just a shill then, and he is just a shill now.

There was also absolutely no reason for him to become Secretary of State. He had already lost the Presidential election and should have made room for someone with a future.

There's just something horribly insincere about the man.

[Carolina]

75. Touche, Stranger

I couldn't agree with you more.

I remember his cowardly, finger-in-the-political wind vote for IWR before the 2002 midterms. He was in a safe Senate seat, his constituents were against IWR, and tellingly, he knew the Bushes (father & son) were liars since he had investigated Iran-Contra.

He's beyond horribly insincere; he's truly despicable. He lost his moral compass (if he ever had one) ages ago as he climbed the political ladder and married the uber-rich republican Mrs. Heinz!

[Triana]

39. I don't care what they want to call it...

...bombing Syria as a "punishment" as if the US is some goddamned worldwide moral compass everyone else has to synchronize to or as if the US is some kind of goddamned worldwide policeman or babysitter is just as offensive.

SURE what happened in Syria was bad. But GODDAMN we've done as bad or worse to our own people HERE! Instead of gassing them, we STARVE them to death. We take away their jobs, refuse to pay them livable wages when they do have jobs, take away their unemployment when they can't find any more jobs and we withhold or deny them needed healthcare. We have income inequality that is WORSE THAN IT'S EVER BEEN IN HISTORY. Our social and economic condition is a tinderbox and is UNSUSTAINABLE as it stands and cannot continue.

We stood by while Saddam "gassed his own people" and we fucking HELPED him do it! And we went behind him and gassed MORE of his people ourselves. And this government is SERIOUSLY considering bombing another country for "gassing" people? SERIOUSLY? OH. MY. GOD. the HYPOCRISY of this is just STUNNING.

STUNNING!!

WHAT. MORAL. COMPASS. does the United States have right now in light of all this to bomb Syria? What good is that going to do? How are we going to pay for it? And WHY should we?

If we fucking can't afford Social Security and Medicare, if we fucking let war criminals off scot-free and act like war criminals ourselves, if we fucking cannot manage to put gambling banksters who brought the world's economy TO. ITS. KNEES. just 5 years ago from which we STILL have not recovered, if we fucking give unfettered license to the likes of Wall St., the Koch Brothers and ALEC to BUY our government, suppress our votes, refuse to pay taxes, control our media and DESTROY our economy and our natural environment -- then we CANNOT. AFFORD. TO. BOMB. SYRIA.

------> AND WE DO NOT HAVE THE MORAL STANDING TO DO IT! <-------

EDITED TO ADD:

Just a few months ago, an asshole with an assault weapon went into an elementary school and MURDERED 20 little kids and what did our country DO about that? NOTHING. NOT. A. THING. Did we change or strengthen gun laws? NO. Did we outlaw assault weapons or high-capacity magazines? NO. WE. DID. NOTHING. Because the goddamned NRA controls our Congress. NINETY PERCENT or more of Americans wanted tougher gun laws. What did we GET? NOTHING. Because we have a pantywaist ninny Congress which is OWNED and CONTROLLED by gangsters.

Fuck Syria.

We have ISSUES of our own at home we need to deal with FIRST before we have ANY business "punishing" any other international "criminals" -- when the hell are we going to punish our own national ones? If we can't do that, we have no business sticking our noses into what any others do anywhere else.

This is BULLSHIT. The United States is NOT any kind of Moral International Church Lady that has ANY MORAL standing to do any of this. Not one iota!

GOD DAMN this fucking arrogant, hypocritical, criminal, immoral country! THIS ONE. RIGHT HERE. Not Syria. Not Iraq. THIS ONE.

[Catherina]

94. Oh no! Where was this school tragedy :( Truthful, poignant rant

You rant for me Triana. 20 kids? Where?

[Triana]

134. Newtown...

...

http://abcnews.go.com/US/newtown-schools-country-crack-security/story?id=20010701

[Catherina]

160. Oh :(

Tears. No words

[Blue_In_AK]

178. Righteous rant, Triana.

I could not agree with you more.

[Oilwellian]

210. I totally agree

[Celefin]

231. This should be an OP. Spot on.

I'd actually love to hear the President answering live to all the points you just addressed.
If you can deny any of this or spin your way out of it then you have made it 120% where you stand.
And it's not with the people. Any people. Anywhere.

[Faryn Balyncd]

42. What happened to the John Kerry we once knew?

[JRLeft]

45. He voted for the Iraq war. same guy as always.

[Faryn Balyncd]

54. I was asking about this one:

[JRLeft]

59. He retired.

[tazkcmo]

193. He got elected.

THAT'S a game changer.

[truebluegreen]

43. Tell that to Cambodia.

Or to the people under the bombs.

[polichick]

46. The hearing is an amazing display of HUBRIS...

Where have we heard that word before?

[cali]

51. there's a lot of stupid mixed in with the propaganda too.

[polichick]

61. I just hope these events wake up some Dem voters.

[Carolina]

48. what a load of

manure. Kerry is

[joelz]

49. Why not call it an

enhanced educational opportunity? Teaching Syrians one bomb at a time.

[HooptieWagon]

56. "We have to drop bombs on civilians to keep civilians from being killed"

...or something like that. The Orwellian-speak is disgusting. Hopefully, only the gullible synchophants are buying it.

[phleshdef]

57. I feel you are being deliberately obtuse. You know what he means and so do most other people.

Usually when we think of going to war, we are talking about a prolonged conflict that involves a genuine occupation. What the administration is proposing is the bombing of key facilities that allows Assad to deploy chemical weapons. No prolonged conflict. No occupation. No boots on the ground. Pretty much what happened in Libya and Bosnia or when we have enforced "no fly zones", etc. I don't consider that "going to war" in the common sense nature that most Americans perceive it. I think you know what he means, you just don't care, you'd rather tear down a good man.

[onenote]

67. +1

Being deliberately obtuse is a common tactic around here these days.

[cthulu2016]

74. I feel you are being deliberately weird.

Seriously... your position is that "the bombing of key facilities that allows Assad to deploy chemical weapons" does not constitute "going to war."

Good luck with that!

[phleshdef]

81. Nope, not really.

For me, war involves a more serious engagement. And that's what Kerry was getting at. You'll live.

[Dawgs]

93. The key phrase in your post is "Americans perceive".

Now how about those at the other end of the bombings? How do they perceive it? And how do you know that this will end soon, or that those bombs won't hit innocent bystanders?

It seems pretty simple or black and white when you think of it as a movie or video game, no?

[phleshdef]

101. Its not simple or black and white at all.

And I certainly don't think of it as a movie or a video game. I'm not a naïve child.

The fact is, chemical weapons can grant certain death to thousands of people within minutes. If its true that the Syrian government used them, then I don't object to trying to take away or at least significantly decrease their ability to do it again. I've never been against military action that seeks to prevent loss of life on a genocidal scale. I think we should've done something about Darfur. I think we were right to do something about Kosovo. I think we were right to do something about Libya.

If our actions end up harming a bunch of innocent bystanders and becomes a prolonged engagement beyond what I understand the current scope to be, then I'll criticize that, I'll protest that, I'll be against that.

[frylock]

99. It could last, you know, six days, six weeks. I doubt six months.

[woo me with science]

115. That's the line that keeps running through my head...

Deja bullshit.

[morningfog]

173. Kerry is trying to semantic around his war crime in action.

[phleshdef]

209. War crimes? Seriously?

The only war crimes committed here was committed by whoever killed 1500 people with chemical weapons.

[morningfog]

220. Illegal acts of war are war crimes.

This is not going to be sanctioned UN. We haven't been attacked. This will be an illegal war, yes war crimes.

[tazkcmo]

195. He said it

He owns it. When I think of war I think of things getting bombed. As someone said before, Japan didn't set one foot in Pearl Harbor so, according to Kerry, that was NOT an act of war. Care for you cake now Mr. Kerry?

[phleshdef]

212. Using Pearl Harbor as an argument is downright idiotic.

The Japanese didn't bomb Pearl Harbor as an international response to the US committing war crimes (aka using WMDs on a civilian population). That argument has no legs to stand on whatsoever.

[tazkcmo]

214. Every bit as legitimate

as our bombing other countries in unilateral actions. Judge, jury and executioner of the world. This thread is about Kerry saying bombing countries isn't war no matter how many times Prosense uses the term ground war. THAT is why the Pearl Harbor can be used. Bombing does not equal war.
Crazy.

[phleshdef]

215. No, not even close.

If we do bomb military sites in Syria, it will be for the purpose of enforcing international laws on the use of chemical weapons. Reasons and motivations matter, whether you like it or not.

And no, bombing does not always equal "war".

[tazkcmo]

216. This isn't about if we do or don't

Different thread. It's about if you believe dropping bombs on people is not war. I believe it is cause if you do it to me, we're at war. I guess you don't feel that way.

If we get UN sanction AND Congressional approval, I won't like it because I don't believe it'll accomplish anything good, but I'll have to live with it. Won't be the first time I've disagreed with our nation's leaders and I'm sure it won't be the last.

But you'll never convince me that dropping bombs is not war. I agree with Webster on this and I'll bet any recipient of bombs do too.

[Union Scribe]

238. Except that Kerry admits he can't promise no boots

on the ground:
http://www.buzzfeed.com/rosiegray/kerry-wont-rule-out-ground-troops-in-syria

[phleshdef]

240. And then he ruled them out like 5 minutes later.

[Union Scribe]

241. Until he goes back on that again.

The guy's a flake on foreign policy. Sorry, but this is his Iraq War waffling all over again. He says one thing, takes it back, votes one way, campaigns another, and on and on up to the present mess.

And do you really want chemical weapons falling into terrorists' hands? Is that the brilliant outcome of this totally-not-war?

[phleshdef]

243. I really don't care about John Kerry's train of thought problems.

The fact of the matter is, he said the administration would be comfortable with Congress explicitly including a ban on ground troops in the coming resolution.

[indie9197]

62. It is just called an "Operation" now. The word "War" is just too generic.

All that is left now is to name it.

http://www.ftrain.com/cgi-bin/l_operation.cgi?num_ops=10

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

66. Kinda like saying it's not rape if he just puts the tip in.

[Carolina]

78. K&R EXCELLENT

rejoinder, TyL.

[woo me with science]

70. Brazen Orwellian bullshit.

[Xithras]

73. And what if Assad sinks one of our ships in retaliation? Is it war then?

Frequently lost in this debate is the fact that Syria has a large number of current-generation Yakhont long range anti-ship cruise missiles that they picked up from Russia earlier this year. The Israeli's bombed the warehouses storing them in June, but it's been widely reported that our own intelligence community now believes that at least some, and possibly all, of the missiles had been moved prior to the bombing and are still in Syrian control. These current generation missiles were designed by the Russians to evade American countermeasures and attack American carrier fleets, and can do a lot of damage to anything that strays into range.

So what happens if one of our destroyers lobs a cruise missile at a Syrian military base, and the Syrians lob a cruise missile back at the destroyer? Will we claim that the Syrians attacked US, and use it as justification for a wider war? Or will we still say that a cruise missile strike isn't really "war"?

[warrant46]

86. And that is the $64,000.00 question

So I guess we all buy lots of buttered popcorn and pull up a chair and watch.

One thing for sure a lot of civilians will be killed or as the ruling class used to say

"We had to destroy the village to Save It"

[oldhippie]

157. Range differential .......

The Yakhont anti ship missile has a range of about 300 km. Tomahawk cruise missiles have a range of 1200 - 2500 km, depending on the variant and mission. No US ship will go anywhere near the range circle of a Syrian anti-ship missile base.

Range differential is one of the guiding forces of military tactics and development.

[Xithras]

206. I realize that.

The question was primarily theoretical. Of course, I do have to point out that the entire coast of Lebanon, nearly all of Cyprus, much of Southern Turkey, and a vast swathe of northern Israel is within range of these things. That's still a lot of potential "revenge" targets.

I heard it mentioned yesterday that the UK was actually in even more danger from this than the US is. The entire Akrotiri airbase, where the UK was positioning its air support resources, is within range of the Syrian missile systems. That could have been ugly.

[KamaAina]

76. That depends on what the meaning of the word "war" is.

[Shrike47]

80. Yes it is going to war, and I'm against it.

More people are going to die if we bomb.

[Demeter]

84. It IS a War Crime, though.

and it's "rein in Kerry" not reign in.

[grahamhgreen]

87. HAHA! Von Clauswitz: "War is thus an act of force to compel our enemy to do our will."

[cali]

89. Kerry keeps referring to "the opposition" as if it was some cohesive whole

totally misleading.

[MisterP]

90. I just know that somewhere in this thread, where I can't see it, is someone saying

"Kerry said it, so it's true, because Kerry said it"

[DissidentVoice]

95. Kerry should, of all people, know better

He's a combat veteran of Vietnam (where the US was certainly bombing other countries) and a former Naval officer.

Whatever you want to call it, whenever opponents arm up and shoot each other, that's war.

[chimpymustgo]

97. Yes, Kerry is...increasingly embarrassing. What a farce.

[Jefferson23]

98. Obama is not looking for a way out then? I had hoped he threw this in their court

for just that reason after the UK no vote.

[madrchsod]

106. interesting....putting the house in a bigger spot than what they are now

the administration is making the republicans put up or shut up when it comes to war.

what obama is requesting is "nothing like going to war" so republicans can vote for going to war. the ball is in their court and as of now the republicans have`t a clue on what to do with it.

yes kerry speaks for obama and so far he is doing a good job .

[mike_c]

108. actually he's right-- it's terrorism....

But it's a war of aggression under the U.N. Charter, which we have ratified.

[bvar22]

110. Isn't the unprovoked dropping of BOMBS on the assets of a foreign country...

...EXACTLY what Japan did to Pearl Harbor in 1941?
The Japanese strike on Pearl harbor was also "limited",
and targeted ONLY Military Assets.

A major difference is that Japan had a valid military reason.
The US Fleet at Pearl DID threaten the Japanese ability to dominate their Empire.

Syria does NOT pose ANY threat to the USA or our National Security.
NONE.

Does John Kerry consider the bombing of Pearl harbor an Act of WAR?
Everybody else certainly does, including Japan.


So sad to watch John Kerry destroy a once proud legacy.
I wonder what "they" have on him.
I watched him on the Sunday AM Talking Heads, and it was pitiful.
He was uncharacteristically incoherent at times while trying to make the case that Syria was a threat to OUR National Security.

His eyes were also furtive and evasive.
He is not near the LIAR that Colin Powell is.

Sad.

[DeSwiss]

112. ''Speaking of people who......

...have no business holding any power or responsibility.''

- Damn, John Kerry you have no business holding any power or responsibility.

K&R

[AnotherMcIntosh]

116. Really? Bombing other countries is not "Going to war"?

[MichiganVote]

117. Uh huh..sounds like 'we make our own reality'

I am so sick of this bullshit.

[JEB]

118. Maybe we could just drop Joe the liar Lieberman on Syria.

That would fuck them up.

[Ken Burch]

120. The John Kerry of 1971 is dead.

That man, that courageous hero, could not live in the shroud in a suit that said that bombing a country isn't the same as going to war against it.

Resign, ghost.

[BlueStreak]

123. Not for us. He'a actually right about that. But for the Syrians, well ...

[karynnj]

124. I think it has more to do with common usage - most short duration military actions are not called "w

Last edited Tue Sep 3, 2013, 05:41 PM - Edit history (1)

Remember when Bill Clinton bombed Iraq for a few days in 1993? Has anyone ever referred to that as a "war"? I don't think so - and that was also for "punishment".

Look at comments here comparing it to Vietnam. Don't you think that is farther from a correct statement than what Kerry said.

[cthulu2016]

156. You are right (about the spelling)

[Jack Rabbit]

131. That's easy to say when you're dropping the bombs

. . . and not on the ground under them.

John Kerry went to Vietnam, was outraged at what he saw and took a principled stand against the war. After he returned from Vietnam, he attended law school, where he was taught how to make an argument and that his first duty is to his client and not the truth. If a lawyer can't make a good argument in support of his client's case, then a silly one will have to do. If a lawyer's client is in the wrong, then a principled stand just won't do. He has to resort to an argumentum ad absurdum.

Bombing is nothing like going war, eh? And scarlet isn't red, either, I suppose.

[snagglepuss]

135. The slippery slope. Once people rationalize the use of drone strikes, it easy to justify

this action.

[LittleBlue]

136. Ahahahaha

Way to flush what little legacy you have down the toilet. Actually you really never had one, carry on with the Bush logic.

[AsahinaKimi]

138. Has he been talking to McCain?

This sounds like something McCain would say. Its nuts!!

[valerief]

147. It ain't a welcome wagon either, Kerry! nt

[rug]

151. What is it, random homicide performed by a state without authorization?

[Catherina]

161. Chris Murphy's comments are nice counterweight to Kerry's hysterical swipes

@kgosztola

Sen. Chris Murphy's comments are nice counterweight to Kerry's hysterical swipes at senators who might vote "no" to war

[marble falls]

162. Hey its all relative: compared to a nuclear strike (something the Isreali's have not taken off the..

table) random "strategic and tactical" bombings apparently don't really seem like war.

It wouldn't bother me near so much (but still more than enough) if they actually got their hands dirty and if they invested their own children into their "involvements" - they're not really wars, remember?

[Blue_In_AK]

164. I'm fairly certain that if another country decided to drop a bomb on one of our military bases,

we would consider it an act of war. It's stupid season in DC, and I am extremely disappointed in John Kerry, whom I have always respected. We must assume that he is speaking for his boss.

[Catherina]

169. Kerry, making zero sense a few minutes ago. WMD mixing is so dishonest.

@attackerman

"Is there a difference between gas and a nuclear weapon? To be honest with you, it depends on the scale." Kerry, making zero sense now

Edit, sorry, wrong thread. I meant this for the Senate Hearing thread.

[morningfog]

171. Respectful, fuck you Secretary.

[wisteria]

175. Whatever, your ignorane is bliss I suppose.n/t

[cali]

179. An impressively disgraceful performance.

Disgusting.

I've never particularly cared for him. Now I just find him appalling.

[sulphurdunn]

181. WTF

I served like Kerry, Hagel and McCain in the same war, and the next time somebody from over there sets off a bomb over here, I'll remind these fucks that it isn't an act of war. Let's be honest. Being a veteran does not make one a moral authority, far from it. I know.

[idwiyo]

182. ... WTF?...

[roamer65]

186. It is a war crime without UN approval.

[truth2power]

191. GawdAlmighty!!! I read that subject line and I thought, "Is he all right? Maybe he has some

organic brain disorder, or something".

Sounds like somebody who belongs in a psychiatric unit. Delusional!

This is, indeed, very sad. And embarrassing.

[99th_Monkey]

194. Notice he says "OIHER countries"? But what if someone bombs the USA?

Well, that would be "AN ACT OF WAR!!!"

[Flatulo]

198. We've sold Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Jordan skillions of $$$ worth of weapons.

The Arab league is demanding action, so the Arab league should lead the charge.

[CrispyQ]

208. If someone lobs a few in our country, we won't interpret it as an act of war, right, Mr. Secretary?

Did I really hear him say that if we don't act, "gas will proliferate?" Tell me I didn't hear that. Does that remind anyone of this infamous statement? "...we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud?"

They should all have to reveal their stock portfolios. Fuckers.

[phleshdef]

213. If our government starts using WMDs on our own population... then no, it wouldn't be.

[CrispyQ]

230. I get it. Because we used our WMD on other populations, we can still hold the moral high ground.

Depleted uranium, white phosphorus, napalm, the atom bomb.

"War doesn't determine who's right, only who's left."

[phleshdef]

232. No one had the balls to call us out on it.

Doesn't mean the current President should turn a blind eye when current dictators break the rules.

[CrispyQ]

237. So might makes right. Got it. --nt

[phleshdef]

239. No. But the UN ignoring violations of the chemical weapons ban doesn't make right either.

[Scootaloo]

211. More and more I come to realize he only looked good 'cause of who he was running against

But then, once a Deaniac, always a Deaniac, I suppose. YEEEEAAAAH!

[Catherina]

222. Wow n/t

[jsr]

225. Bombs Are For Peace

[warrant46]

257. Arc Light

[fujiyama]

228. He's making a fool of himself

I almost feel bad for how embarrassing this is. First with the photos of him with Assad at dinner. Now this. Then again this is Mr. I was for it before I was against it.

It's sad, because I think he's actually a decent and thoughtful public servant capable of understanding the complexities and nuances. But he seems to have forgotten many lessons about the limits of American force - and has not laid out what we really hope to accomplish over there. He has not been very convincing. And no one is interested in hearing comparisons to Hitler. I'm sure many started tuning out right there.

[myrna minx]

242. Breathtaking doublespeak. I'm just stunned.

[silvershadow]

244. That pipeline must be damn vital, that's all I gotta say. nt

[indepat]

247. Never have I been as disappointed in two people in the post WWII-era as

now

[arikara]

249. Maybe all the botox he used to immobilize his face

seeped into his brain and froze that too.

[blkmusclmachine]

250. WAR HAWK

[darkangel218]

267. .

[Wounded Bear]

251. 'Going to,' maybe not.....'being at'....yeah, probably....

It's all in the semantics, see?

[PoliticAverse]

252. 'Acts of War' only become war if they shoot back... n/t

[Cleita]

253. Really? Then why did we go to Afghanistan after 9/11?

Because basically we got bombed.

[liberal N proud]

255. Is that what we said when the germans bombed pearl harbor?

Or any other time the US was attacked?

An attack is an act of war, is it not?

[Cleita]

263. Who bombed Pearl Harbor?

I believe it was Japan.

[liberal N proud]

264. I know, I was just doing my belishi imitation

[Cleita]

265. Hookay!

I was wondering.

[CanonRay]

259. Talk about losing your credibility.

John Kerry just pissed away 40 years worth.

[bobclark86]

260. Killing is war

War is killing. Let's not mince words here.

Personally, I haven't made up my mind yet, but I am leaning slightly towards a "measured" response: like a cruise missile strike at the chemical weapons plants and airfields. But I have no qualms about it: it would be an act of war. There would be people killed, and that is a (literally) grave responsibility that needs to be honored.

[DirkGently]

266. I'm still gaping at his "Arab nations will pay for our invasion"

tidbit earlier.

Because he just wanted us to know that, not that we will or anything, but we could, you know ... INVADE for pretty cheap, probably, cause he knows some guys.