General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsI don't give a shit about Rand Paul, or Obama's political standing, or House GOP motivations.
If this Syria nonsense makes for strange bedfellows, so be it.
Stop trying to tell me I'm allied with Rand Paul, or screwing the president, or assisting the House GOP because I think attacking Syria is dangerous, foolish madness.
You're wrong, we're right. Period, end of file.
If Mr. Obama didn't want his balls in this particular vise, he should not have dangled them there. I'm not going to support blowing more children sideways out of their bedrooms and potentially sparking a region-wide conflagration just because the president boxed himself in, or because it means I might agree with a Republican. Of all the reasons to support this shitstorm, those are easily the dumbest of the lot.
The hyper-authoritarian impulse to support WHATEVER THE BOSS SAYS NO MATTER WHAT WHAAARGARBLE is not solely a right-wing phenomenon.
I was not born with that particular gene, and I thank God for it every single day.
So go peddle those papers somewhere else. You're wrong, and you're boring.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Purveyor
(29,876 posts)Hearing some of THAT being thrown around this place at we anti-war supporters.
Marr
(20,317 posts)I was honestly naive enough to think this sort of belligerent, lock-step thinking was a right-wing trait just a few short years ago. It's so disappointing to see the same empty-headed leader worship here.
Hell Hath No Fury
(16,327 posts)And it is scaring the crap out of me. 
City Lights
(25,171 posts)I never, ever thought I'd see that type of thinking here.
SammyWinstonJack
(44,129 posts)
City Lights
(25,171 posts)They've turned into verbal contortionists.
Mojorabbit
(16,020 posts)are prolific posters. They are not in the majority. They do make having rational discussions very difficult.
aggiesal
(8,907 posts)during the re-authorization of the Patriot Act and renewing the wiretapping.
I kept hearing how it was bad when GW McIdiot was in office, but justifying
Obama at the same time.
I think their critical thinking skills has degenerated to nothing.
cynzke
(1,254 posts)lead paint in the White House???
MisterP
(23,730 posts)because the politics of illusion has identified "Dem" with "left" (to the point where "left" means "anything the Dems support"
--so the closer the policies and the louder the fighting, the more the media can decry "the widening split between left and right" in the US, as though the Dems have moved too far left
How ironic that voting rights are under attack, as more and more people find less reason to vote
"...transformation into Bushbots is complete". It amazes me how many of the people who called blind, unquestioning Bush followers "sheeple" have now become the very same thing they disparaged. It's wrong, and it's dangerous, regardless of whether you're a Democrat or a Republican.
7962
(11,841 posts)I've seen stuff excused by many on here for years. You'd see a story about something stupid some GOPer would say or do, but anything equally stupid by a dem would be brushed off, or if you were the unlucky one to bring it up you were instantly a "troll" or worse.
Maybe now people will see that just because its YOUR side doesnt make it right. It certainly seems like its happening with this event.
SwampG8r
(10,287 posts)we admit we know better but still do it
cui bono
(19,926 posts)Although lately it's nice to see more DUers speaking truth to power. Still, seeing so many blind loyalist apologists is really disheartening. It shows TPTB's marketing campaign is working.
silvershadow
(10,336 posts)
TheKentuckian
(25,020 posts)I think you got turned around on the part where you identified the right to just be TeaPubliKlans.
The hard core anti-government shit and the wild and open bigotry create a political distortion, the rightists that have a use for government and/or don't reflexively hate or at least look down on anybody that isn't a protestant, white male either got forced into our ideologically too big tent, remain unhappy and marginalized TeaPubliKlans, ramble about in the third party wilderness, or just drop out.
No small number just switched jerseys and but their time and money into making our party in their own image. The money came pouring in and the associations of the revolving door took root. Next thing you know the bent is conservative, at least.
HumansAndResources
(229 posts)Last edited Fri Sep 6, 2013, 01:23 AM - Edit history (1)
Chinese News:
http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/808455.shtml#.UiiMsjZ9te5
It is still unclear which side in Syria used chemical weapons. It should be noted that the so-called evidence presented by the US and France is too ambiguous and insufficient to convict Syria, an entire country, of crimes, and military strikes on Syria will very likely cause many casualties. As countries built on the rule of law, (sic) the US and France have made reckless decisions.
The problem is both Washington and Paris do not really care about international law. Every action they take on Syria stems from their own political judgment of Syria's national situation. Such a judgment is also based on their geopolitical interests in this area. It is irrational to say that someone who wants to stop a war is "crazier" than someone who wants to start one.
Washington has made its judgment - even if it turns out that chemical weapons were not used by Syrian government troops, the US knows it won't be held to account for launching such a misguided war, as it did in Iraq. A journalist with the Associated Press has reportedly revealed the inside story, claiming that Syrian opposition forces mishandled chemical weapons. But this revelation has not been given enough attention since it was reported, either from the US government or Western media.
...
To make matters worse, nobody is really being held responsible for the chaos left by (Iraq and Afghanistan). President Bush has left office and doesn't need to concern himself with the consequences. Obama still has about three years left in the White House. As long as he manages his remaining time well, nobody will ask him to be responsible for Syria in a few years' time.
Those of us who know better don't buy the "rule of law" bit for a second - "law" is for We Peons, while Wall St Banksters and NSA-Compliant Transnational Corporations get special laws written to "legalize" their traitorous, criminal behavior. In many respects, this piece is too kind and too soft. Still, it reflects China's position as not "on our (sic) side" in wanting to put Al Qaeda in charge of yet another nation in the region.
Given their position, does anyone find it odd that only Russia gets called out for being "obstructionist" in the Security Council? Perhaps China has agreed, behind the scenes, to "abstain" as they have on other, similar occasions.
Maybe, just maybe, this is because this war is about screwing Russia, who stubbornly will not sell out its resources and people to Western Transnational Power, and has NOTHING to do with the "humanitarian concerns" we are being fed. Only a complete idiot could actually believe our wars are about "helping people" given what is NOT being done in Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and other "friendly dictatorships" of the Western Transnationals. Only a blind fool could miss the NGO / Foundation aid given to Chechnyan fundamentalist-terrorist 'rebels' to kill Russians - the same groups getting our (sic) help in Syria now, Lybia before, and Afghanistan from 1979 (Six months Before the USSR responded to the US/Terrorist Proxy army) through June of 2001 (date of last payment to the Taliban schoolgirl-murderers from the US Treasury).
roguevalley
(40,656 posts)on washington. It amazes me how blind some are.
badtoworse
(5,957 posts)
leftstreet
(36,101 posts)
DURec
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)
myrna minx
(22,772 posts)kestrel91316
(51,666 posts)where we don't see eye-to-eye.
FOOLISHNESS - this will not be to our benefit in the end. The rebels are NOT our friends.
fadedrose
(10,044 posts)I really like Obama, but it doesn't bother me to support Pitt in this instance...
I will always love Obama. Our kids make mistakes too....
sinkingfeeling
(51,438 posts)a missile attack. Where's the black ops group when you need them?
jsr
(7,712 posts)
n2doc
(47,953 posts)NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)
Fantastic Anarchist
(7,309 posts)It's pathetic.
winter is coming
(11,785 posts)can do anything, by any means, to improve it, much less that a bombing campaign will have any good effect.
RC
(25,592 posts)Treat politics like a game. They go by that all important (D) or (R). They have no principals, if the other side did it, it is bad. But, if our side does the same thing, as is happening now, all is good. People like that cannot be trusted.
wandy
(3,539 posts)SammyWinstonJack
(44,129 posts)
cthulu2016
(10,960 posts)(But you might want to edit to 'vise' I don't want to think about what vices the president is exposing his balls to.)
WilliamPitt
(58,179 posts)
badtoworse
(5,957 posts)avaistheone1
(14,626 posts)Perhaps a Freudian slip. Both words may apply in this application if you get my drift.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)If we don't bomb Syria other countries may laugh at us.
jsr
(7,712 posts)
crim son
(27,464 posts)Demit
(11,238 posts)
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)shit is crazy around here these days.
cali
(114,904 posts)right on, will.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)Gotta pay for these wars somehow.
Meow.
antigop
(12,778 posts)
Wolf Frankula
(3,598 posts)The country is going to war so Barack Obama can look tough. People are going to die so the President can look tough.
He'll look tough, before he caves to the Goopers in Congress on health care or Social Security.
Wolf
chimpymustgo
(12,774 posts)QuestForSense
(653 posts)He's been photographed a lot lately making his own version of Bush's monkey lips. Sad but dangerous.
lark
(23,065 posts)It sorely needed to be said. I'm right there with you, in the anti-war with Syria column! And we are right!
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts) WilliamPitt
(58,179 posts)JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)Snark, smart ass comments, sure ... but repeated OPs with each looking to set a higher and higher hyperbole bar, na.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)where you hit with a huge hammer and try to Bing that bell on top.
so far no bing, but trying real hard.
Marr
(20,317 posts)Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)nt
Puglover
(16,380 posts)
phantom power
(25,966 posts)Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)[URL=
.html][IMG]
[/IMG][/URL]
Skittles
(153,113 posts)
stupidicus
(2,570 posts)and most predictable thing to be found in all of this.
I'd add that the support for "anything" isn't the only thing rightwingnuts don't have a monopoly on. I've seen and commented many times on the way this type shares tactics in the course of debate as well, making them intellectual lightweights as well.
If they wanna play the guilt by association game, then remind them of all the neo-cons fully behind the Syria effort.
What I find most amusing about them is that like with all the major issues before it in the last year or two, they are really nothing more than a vociferous minority that has no choice but to try to make up with BS what they lack in substance.
For example, who knew that an actual invasion was necessary before the definition of war is satisfied.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)You said ...
That happens in OP after OP around here. You note it almost as an afterthought.
But that tactic, what you call the "guilt by association game" ... is played in the other direction, also very frequently.
It reminds me of the "the NSA humping authoritarians are calling us good liberals libertarians" OPs that pop up regularly.
stupidicus
(2,570 posts)from the "first blood" crowd retaliate in kind as I suggested?
that's some really shocking stuff and an astute observation there Mr.philly
Skittles
(153,113 posts)
Ford_Prefect
(7,872 posts)I am amazed that some North Carolina Democrats I normally rely on have made such fools of themselves for AIPAC over Syria and Iran while more Republicans whom I cannot stand are actually asking the correct questions for once.
This is not about marching in the party line, or respecting the president. Obama has been made a fool through depending on the same Neo-Cons in the State department who engineered attacking Iraq. My President is human and has been foolish more often than I had hoped for.
Rand Paul is often a fool but he too asks the right question.
Neither this situation nor this site are about worshiping the President. This situation is about doing the right thing for the right reasons.
HumansAndResources
(229 posts)No. He just works for "them." He is a smart guy who obeys his orders. Sorry to break the spell, but his economic positions are consistent with the Syria War position. His being a good speaker doesn't change this - anymore than it did for Reagan or Clinton.
The "Rethuglicans are worse" bit doesn't cut it either. Larry Summers is, at the minimum, guilty of Gross Negligence on multiple counts - most notably Glass Stegall - yet he is on the "short list" for Fed-Chair? Trade policy falls into this category - no light between Pres. Obama and McCain or Rand on that topic.
Where the rubber meets the road, Pres. Obama's positions are terrible. His wedge-issue positions are a sideshow - a contrived sideshow, I should add, to bolster the illusion of choice. We had better get it together in the next Primary and stop buying the "media-says electable" lies. "Mutt and Jeff" / "Good Cop Bad Cop" games must be seen as what they are - a trick. Buy into either and we elect another representative of Wall St - and We The Working People loose the election - again.
FlyByNight
(1,756 posts)K. And. R.
blue14u
(575 posts)from the FICA account? I have many reasons to oppose this war.
All are from my observation of the matter, and made on my own!
My thoughts and feelings on this have nothing to do with a politician,
or politics. I made up my mind before they even spoke up!
As far as having blind faith in the POTUS, I do not. I have opposed
to many things he has done and am on record with my friends.
I do have a question, and apologize if it has been answered already here,
is Hillary supporting this war? If you know, or anyone knows yet.
HumansAndResources
(229 posts)We don't get a choice on foreign policy or economics - mass-murder / global-wide-theft nor the nature of our standard of living - at least, until we quick buying the "media-says electable" trick.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hillary-clinton-backs-syria-strikes-president-obama/story?id=20145882
"Secretary Clinton supports the president's effort to enlist the Congress in pursuing a strong and targeted response to the Assad regime's horrific use of chemical weapons," a Clinton aide told ABC News.
The Western Transnationals want Assad Out and Their Pipeline, plus the Cheney-affiliated Genie Energy IN.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/srael-grants-first-golan-heights-oil-drilling-license-to-dick-cheney-linked-company/5347779
The Fundimentalist-Terrorists were "the enemy" when they were unable to secure the Afghan Pipeline route, and blocked the Bankster's Opium Production - a situation Quickly Restored with the US Invasion.
blue14u
(575 posts)and especially the links.
I already decided I was not crazy about voting for
Hill. This just seals the deal!
ocpagu
(1,954 posts)It's quite simple. It's a war crime in the making.
I don't care if Satan opposes it. If he does, he'll be on my side.
I don't care if Mother Teresa supports it. If she does, fuck her.
That's it.
WCGreen
(45,558 posts)The difference between Us and them is they demand fealty while we are left to have our own opinions.
marmar
(77,056 posts)....... It's depressing to see so many DUers become what they purported to hold in contempt in 2003.
Fantastic Anarchist
(7,309 posts)... is quite distressing, and ironically Stalinesque.
Right-wing authoritarian personality works on both the political left* and right. They did the same test to Soviet citizens and they scored high on the RWA as their western counterparts due to the high degree of deference to authority.
*When I use "political left," not referring to the actual left. The political left can refer to the authoritarian nature of the Soviet Union (which arguably can be described as state capitalist and fascist). I just wanted to clarify my stance as a libertarian Leftist.
OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)to understand the constraints involved in the liberal/conservative continuum.
That's why we have "liberals" who support a surveillance state and wars of aggression.
Ideology is hard; identity is easy.
Go team!
Fantastic Anarchist
(7,309 posts)Yes, it makes for an interesting hodgepodge, eh?
beerandjesus
(1,301 posts) Fantastic Anarchist
(7,309 posts)
It's apparently
<--------that way!
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)It intends to rid the sight of you all and to explain to everyone, get this, "What Anarchists believe!". I wonder if it will finally read all the material you supplied so it can learn for itself what you believe before explaining it to the world.
Luckily, I was told, that if I am not an Anarchist that I would have nothing to worry about... Thank Goddess I had begun the process of urine evacuation before I was told I may survive after all due to being a Democratic Socialist rather than one of your soon to be doomed lot.
Good luck, and Goddess bless, may she protect you from the divine smiter of Anarchist souls.
Fantastic Anarchist
(7,309 posts)Thanks. I'm bringing it up at our next meeting. After our successful takeover of Democratic Underground, "it" will be dealt with swiftly and in a barbarous manner (since "it" thinks of us as violent barbarians).
Did you know "it" was defending Frick against Alexander Berkman?
It is no friend of the Left.
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)out of the ooze to grace us with its presence.
Luckily I AM a friend of the left so I am sure you "barbarians" will take that into consideration once your long planned coup is finally realized.
If you are interested in it's rantings, they are in that original thread with your list that it hijacked to tell you what you believe (but didn't know you did)
Fantastic Anarchist
(7,309 posts)Our revolution couldn't happen without you.
Of course, we don't know what the revolution to be since we don't know what we believe in. We're consulting our dictionaries as we speak.
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)fəˈläsəfē/
noun
1.
the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, esp. when considered as an academic discipline.
I find it is among the most thorough work submitted this term, I intend to pad it a little with double spacing and have it published as a book for the masses as well.
Fantastic Anarchist
(7,309 posts)I actually laughed out loud at your several PhDs to get.
Notice how it thinks I'm in agreement with Plato? I'm not, my purpose was to have it describe Plato's philosophy using a dictionary. Did my post make sense, or is it that dense?
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)I was a little distracted laughing at what it thought were rebuttals, but you kept thinks fairly simple for it so even through the tears of laughter I followed just fine.
I am sure everybody that read that exchange understood you as well and had a very similar reaction to that funny little thing that followed you around.
Fantastic Anarchist
(7,309 posts)It really didn't understand what I was getting at.
It acted like it discovered the cure for cancer or something. It was quite proud of itself. Definitely a thread for laughs, even if it did get derailed (which I'm doing to this one) (apologies).
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)It really does appear to be quite proud of itself, as well as self righteous, and convinced of some site authority that borders on delusion.
I had my laughs but my attempt at advice was sincere. Calling out people and assuming a mantle of supreme board authority never did sit too well with the admins, I was really trying to warn it in a sincere if funny way.
I also agree I have done my part to derail this excellent OP of Will's. I think we should save it for when next it attacks and simply answer the absurd ramblings it has to offer as they are presented to us. Something tells me there is much more laughter and proud threats of destroying "Anarchistic barbarians" to be had.
Marr
(20,317 posts)An authoritarian is subservient to the authority figures in his/her society, and politics really doesn't figure into it. Though he did go on to say, IIRC, that in the west, such views did seem to be more common on the right side of the political spectrum.
Fantastic Anarchist
(7,309 posts)With that paradigm, you really have to use a different scale. Where deference to authority would be considered a right-wing feature (traditional authority) regardless of economic or political bent.
Ocelot
(227 posts)It's not about salvaging Obama's image or ego. No one should own this except Obama, Kerry & the other warmongers on both sides of the aisle. So they've foolishly drawn a line in the sand and people aren't buying it...they'll have to live with it, oh well. It's GOOD that the GOP legislators mostly oppose him now, because that will bolster Democratic chances in 2014/2016, and that's more important than one President's hurt feelings. Yes, politics do make strange bedfellows.
And to Israel and Saudi Arabia: the next time you want a war and want us to do it for you: SCREW YOU!
frog64
(40 posts)yep. O may be the craftiest here. Let the Congress oppose him, and then he says, OK. we won't go. Then if Asad does something else, it's his and congress's ass. O will be strengthened, and the GOP goes down next year. Work on the refugee problem and go to the World Corut.
Ocelot
(227 posts)Is that one of the Saudi princes who boss Obama around?
snippy.
BlueJazz
(25,348 posts)...this time, Obama is as wrong as I've ever seen him..
City Lights
(25,171 posts)
OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)
tblue
(16,350 posts)
DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)bread_and_roses
(6,335 posts)MindPilot
(12,693 posts)Why is the US first response to any crisis especially one that occurs on foreign soil to break shit and kill people?
SammyWinstonJack
(44,129 posts)
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Thank you, Will.
onyourleft
(726 posts)Paladin
(28,243 posts)RevStPatrick
(2,208 posts)...surrounding this issue.
Seemingly intelligent people who go completely off the rails, because it might mean criticizing Mr. President.
I've said it a thousand times, and I'll say it again... I like Mr. Obama. I really do. I think he's a fine human being. We are about the same age, and we totally would have hung out when we were younger. He was a member of the "Choom Gang," I was one of "The Derelicts" at the same time, a continent away. I would have supported him at any time during his career. I truly wish him and his lovely family the best.
But there are some things that he does that simply I cannot support. And because of that, I'm in league with Rand Paul and want him to be president.
It's really quite frustrating...
Skittles
(153,113 posts)I'd say that syndrome swings wildly in both directions 
MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)I got a post hidden for saying as much.
Skittles
(153,113 posts)if the majority is voting from the rabbit hole, it is sunk.....but consider it a badge of honor
WHEN CRABS ROAR
(3,813 posts)My actions are focused on how to stop an attack on Syria.
But maybe that's just a dream, the people have no real power, unless they act as if they do.
totodeinhere
(13,057 posts)that the GOP establishment is firmly in the pro war camp as are most of the Democratic leaders in Congress. One possible exception is Mitch McConnell who is facing a tough reelection fight so he must tread very lightly on this topic since most of his constituents oppose intervention. But if it takes a coalition of the Tea Party and progressive Democrats to stop this, then as you said so be it. Heck, I would make an alliance with the devil himself if that's what it takes to stop this madness.
Union Scribe
(7,099 posts)Maybe it really is genetic, because at this point I'm convinced it's a completely immutable trait. I used to think it was just stubborn partisanship but that notion fails to describe the depth of it.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)probably conditions of employment for others.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts) 
felix_numinous
(5,198 posts)and too am thankful very day I have enough healthy resistance and good instinct intact. It has literally saved my life, my mind and my core being countless times.
The arguments for trusting people who long ago broke this trust are pathetically weak, not to mention the obvious lack of patience.
Trust is EARNED, and forgiveness in practice can only be gifted when there is an agreement that there has been a transgression in the first place.
WCGreen
(45,558 posts)MisterP
(23,730 posts)no doubt they said that any criticism "helps the REAL warmongers"
their party ended within two years
Blue Owl
(50,280 posts) 
malthaussen
(17,175 posts)"Personalities over principles" has become even more rampant in these days of media-soaked superstar politicians. Mind you, that's not to say that the cult of personality has always been with us, but these days it seems it has virtually the only voice that is heard.
-- Mal
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)markpkessinger
(8,392 posts)It's all fucking surreal, isn't it?
think_critically
(118 posts)It's very arrogant to believe that you are right and everyone else is wrong. Bombing/missile strikes will not cause a region wide conflict. It just wont' happen b/c nobody benefits from it. At some point as a country you have to mean what you say. If you let a dictator use chemical weapons nearly a dozen times after you specifically warned him not to do it what does that say about you and your country. I can understand not putting boots on the ground but we are talking about airstrikes and some cruise missiles. This is not Iraq III and I'm sick of people on the left trying to make it out to be that. It just shows that folks on the left are just as bad as people on the right when it comes to misguided idealism. I'm no fan of a lot of what Obama does but it pisses me off when folks on this board act like the solution to this is so cut and dry and that he's some war mongering neocon now. That is ignorant plain and simple.
WilliamPitt
(58,179 posts)You talk about my arrogance right before coughing up this gem: "This is not Iraq III and I'm sick of people on the left trying to make it out to be that."
You don't know that. You can't. Between the fact that Iran is committed to Syria's defense and can sink our entire Persian Gulf fleet in five minutes from their missile sites in the mountains, the fact that the so-called "moderate" rebel opposition is batshit fucking crazy and will indiscriminately slaughter anyone of the Alawite sect they get their hands on before turning Syria into another al-Qaeda base of operations, the fact that the sectarian violence in Iraq will explode, the fact that Israel will almost certainly be targeted and will then retaliate, and all the other facts that lay in wait for us on the other side of this disaster-to-be, you are whistling past the graveyard while telling me not to worry about it.
Save it. You fail.
think_critically
(118 posts)You clearly don't understand what is going on here. Iran is not stupid, they will not risk their entire country for Assad. The rebels are already slaughtering Alawites so these strikes will make no difference. Sectarian violence in Iraq is already exploding and how air strikes in Syria will affect that I don't know. Maybe you can explain. Also, as for Al Qaeda, who do you think the Syrians will turn to if the US shows that it does not mean what it says when it comes to the use of chemical weapons. Someone will fill that vacuum and it will probably be the extremist. Last but not least, and this is the kicker.... Iraq was sold as an invasion. That war was never sold as just air strikes and comparing the two makes absolutely no sense. No rational person can make that argument. It's nothing but fear mongering plain and simple.
beerandjesus
(1,301 posts)That's rich!
think_critically
(118 posts)when it comes to comparing this to other wars especially Iraq.
beerandjesus
(1,301 posts)In fact, in terms of what we can expect by way of outcome, this is exactly like Iraq.
1. We are inserting ourselves into a civil war.
2. The war is basically bad guys against bad guys. Whichever side wins, and regardless of whom we supported, we can expect the victors to be hostile to the US.
3. The strongest players among the rebels are known to be jihadis.
4. The people whose families are killed by "just a few cruise missiles" are not going to care about abstract notions of enforcing international norms.
In fairness, this is different from Iraq in two important ways:
1. Obama is not lying to us about his motivations.
2. There is already a civil war in Syria. We started the civil war in Iraq by toppling the government there.
But a few months out, the situation is going to look damn similar. Now, if you could persuade me that there would be some sort of benefit to lobbing "just a few cruise missiles", you might change my mind. But even if it stops there, I do not see how it helps the situation for the Syrians or for us; however, "just a few cruise missiles" will certainly guarantee that there will be at least a few more people in th world who hate the United States.
think_critically
(118 posts)This will not cause more people in the world to hate us. Especially in the muslim world b/c most of them hate Assad as it is. Al Qaeda absolutely despises him. This is not about inserting ourselves into a civil war, this is about the credibility of the United States. As for families, how do you think the parents of the little children who die a violent death at the hands of chemical weapons will feel when Assad uses them again.
Hell Hath No Fury
(16,327 posts)the parents of little children killed by Assad's/the rebels' bombs, rockets, bullets, and American drone strikes feel.
Dead. Is. Dead. Doesn't really matter how you get there.
beerandjesus
(1,301 posts)"This is about the credibility of the United States."
So the people whose families are killed by missiles are gonna go, "Well, I would be really upset about this, but the US has so much CREDIBILITY...!"
It's an abstract principle. It has nothing to do with actually improving the situation in Syria.
As far as your emotional appeal about "how do the parents of little children.... etc.", I'm sure they will feel terrible, but they won't be inspired to become jihadis and commit terrorist acts on US soil.
Do you really not see the difference, in terms of US policy, between Assad killing people and the United States killing people?
If someone in your neighborhood killed a member of your family, would you kill your state attorney general, because they didn't prevent it? That seems to be position you're advocating--to the degree that it's based in reality at all.
think_critically
(118 posts)I absolutely do see the difference. Assad is purposely killing people. Not to diminish the lives lost unintentionally by air strikes but the U.S. is not purposely targeting civilians and that is a big distinction. Just out of curiosity, if you were Obama what would you do?
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)and it will be no different if WE do the killing or Assad. If I was Obama, I'd stay the hell out of another costly killing mission that will only further ruin this country's credibility. we need to take care of our own crumbling house.
beerandjesus
(1,301 posts)Currently, Assad is killing people. The United States is not. A few cruise missiles would change that.
If I were Obama, I wouldn't have drawn the "red line" in the first place, but if I were in his position right now, I would stay the hell out. I would not kill people out of concern for my "credibility", and I'd be man enough to take my lumps publicly for backing down. To me, that's a much more important principle than this ephemeral (and largely imagined) "credibility".
Just out of curiosity, if the Syrian rebels dropped bombs on your family, would it make a difference to you if they had done it "unintentionally"? It's incredible to me that some people on here actually seem to believe that the Syrians will watch the carnage on al-Jazeera and think, "oh, well, they mean well....!"
Blanks
(4,835 posts)This is about demonstrating that we don't have the authority to single-handedly intervene in other countries.
We go to the UN, we express our concerns to the UN. The US and Russia can have troops working side by side to make certain that chemical weapons are not used against civilians.
It makes sense for people who are somehow employed in the bomb making (or bomb delivery) industry to want to explode bombs somewhere where people are already dying. So what industry are you promoting with your pro-bombing stance?
HumansAndResources
(229 posts)In fairness, this is different from Iraq in two important ways:
1. Obama is not lying to us about his motivations.
2. There is already a civil war in Syria. We started the civil war in Iraq by toppling the government there.
1. I haven't heard President Obama talk about the Oil Politics involved (see my post above and This Map of Libyan Petroleum Resources). I haven't heard him say this is the next step to "get to" / "weaken" Iran and the Lebanese defense forces called "Hezbollah," which have effectively prevented Israel from annexing more territory to their north, nor nary a mention of their planned drilling in Golan (with Cheney's friends at Genie Energy - see above) without interference from the nation whose land the Golan actually belongs (that would be "Syria," if we are going to pretend give a hoot about "international borders / law"
.
2. There was NOT "already" a civil war there. The current Syrian Civil War was started by US/CIA/Western-backed Fundamentalist-Terrorists - just like the one in Afghanistan in 1979, the one that just gave formerly-secular Libya to the Jihadis - not to mention the civil-wars / coups in Iran, Guatemala, Chile, Iraq (multiple times), Nicaragua, El Salvador, Sudan, oh, and that big one, Vietnam .... need I go on ??
Of those the US admitted taking part in at the time (leaving out the ones the US Government LIED ABOUT until ~35 years later), we were ALWAYS told it was to help the people there. Why does anyone still buy that claim?
Worse, after the FAKED Gulf of Tonkin (Vietnam justification), USS Maine (Spanish/American 'Hearst' war), Lustitania Lies (it was loaded with bombs after all), the Iraqi WMD lies, the Eerily-Related Lie that it was Iran (not Saddam) that used CW during the Iran/Iraq war ... Why does ANYONE believe what the US State Dept says "the other guys" did?? Even "Dubya the Challenged" knew the one about, "Fool me once..." (well, not exactly, it was a heavy concept for him, but he got the general idea anyway, with a "little help from The Who"
.
Bottom Line: When do people Stop Believing Known Serial-Liars ??
frylock
(34,825 posts)try a couple of HUNDRED. and look what happened when a couple of airplanes were flown into a couple of buildings. fucking Pollyanna bullshit.
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)
pecwae
(8,021 posts)of cruise missiles will solve everything? Who's not being rational?
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)We are proposing an act of war against a sovereign state. That state is very important to Iran, as a buffer against regional isolation. Iran and its proxy Hezbollah and Syria may all do something in retaliation to our attack, and then we end up in tit-for-tat escalating retaliations. Where that ends is anyone's guess. All sorts of scenarios are possible, none of them good.
Jeff In Milwaukee
(13,992 posts)Iran is living squarely in the consequences-free zone. Think the U.S. is prepared to invade Iran, do you? With resources that have already been massively depleted by a 12-year combat mission? We don't have the personnel or the material to pull off an invasion and a ground war against an opponent who is heavily armed prepared to defend itself.
Iran knows that.
Marr
(20,317 posts)You've entered Rumsfeldia.
think_critically
(118 posts)Dude this had nothing to do with a casual disregard for military force. You are taking it to the extreme and that is what republicans do all the time. Here's the deal here. Assad has been able to do what he wanted for two years and even with calls to intervene Obama did not. Then a year or so ago, he said that Syria chemical weapons would be a red line that would change his thinking. This really wasn't that significant b/c every leader in the world would say the same thing. That said, Assad, knowing that Obama said this and that the world frowns upon the use of these weapons, proceeded to use them on multiple occasions anyway. This last time was just the most damning. On top of that, it is conceivable that Al Qaeda will gain a lot of influence in that country b/c the Syrian rebels will turn to whoever is the strongest and most effective fighting against Assad and anti-americanism will skyrocket among the rebels in that country. All of this said, please tell me what you would do in this situation? You may disagree with Obama but I think any reasonable person would have to say that this is a no win situation either way
Marr
(20,317 posts)will gain more influence in Syria if we don't bomb Assad. That's just speculative fiction.
As for what I would do-- I would like to think I'd first try something that might actually accomplish something beyond just poking the beehive. There are plenty of diplomatic and economic penalties that the international community could apply. We do have a few tools that do not make large 'boom' noises, you know.
kath
(10,565 posts)You mean like the way the US stood by while Saddam did this to Iran and to his OWN PEOPLE, even though the CIA knew in advance that he was going to do so???
think_critically
(118 posts)Argument sounds eerily similar to what's going on now. Wonder why there was no outrage then.
iamthebandfanman
(8,127 posts)See, youre sounding more and more like them every day!
Arcanetrance
(2,670 posts)While chemical weapons use is abhorrent us going in is going to kill civilians in a scale people don't want to think about.
DissidentVoice
(813 posts)
I don't agree with Rand Paul 99.99999% of the time. This time I do.
I wasn't born with that kind of gene either.
Republican Presidents have done things that were good (remember Ike's warning about the MIC?), and Democratic Presidents have done things that were egregious eff-ups (Kennedy/Johnson, Vietnam).
That isn't going to sit well with some on DU...but I apply the DGAS treatment to that.
To just support these actions because the President happens to have a D after his name is no different to all those who call up Rash Windbagh to offer their "mega-Dittoes!"
If Mr. Obama goes through with this, he risks truly becoming the ineffectual, weak President the Republicans have tried to paint him with all along.
blackspade
(10,056 posts) 
fredamae
(4,458 posts)840high
(17,196 posts)
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)board to end these insane foreign adventures and if anyone thinks they can 'change your thinking' by 'accusing' you of being a 'Paulbot', all I can say I hope these are not people who are in charge of anything important in this country. Otoh, it WOULD explain why we are in the mess we are in.
Nothing is going to change the facts of all of this, so they need to stop wasting THEIR time on these stupid attempts to intimidate people. It's not working.
pkdu
(3,977 posts)No, didn't think so.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)present them with facts. I will be continuing to provide facts to everyone I can and then asking them to contact their Reps.
The minority that is supporting this have a much more difficult time changing any minds. See Cameron eg, he just couldn't do it hard as he tried.
In fact the nastiness of those who are supporting it help as they turn people off with their lame attempts to intimidate people. So I thank them for that.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)tartan2
(314 posts)I do not agree with him about a military strike on Syria! What I want to know is where the fuck are the European countries on this! For fuck sakes Syria is in their damn back yard, not ours!!
HumansAndResources
(229 posts)The secret Sikes Picot Agreement which lead to the Carve-Up of the Middle East into nation-states with divided populations (so the people would fight with each other, instead of their common oppressor - sound familiar?) seems to persist as the unspoken rule.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sykes%E2%80%93Picot_Agreement
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)Republicans vote for a leader they can follow.
Democrats vote like it's for a Union Steward and watch them like a hawk for signs of being sold out.
Oh, and the 21st Century Young don't suffer fools lightly. They don't hold to the notion that someone has to stick to their words like they are chiseled in a stone slab. They think it's STUPID that there has to be a GAME of saying, "I know what I said, but I didn't mean it the way it came out." and then play wordsmith to a bunch of overpaid assholes sitting there playing "gotcha" over a life and death issue.
kelliekat44
(7,759 posts)want it, the more likely it is that the GOP will vote "no." It's his way of erasing his "red line" and being able to blame it on the Congress. He knows damn well the American people do not want to strike Syria.
sendero
(28,552 posts)... you can automatically dismiss them as being at best dishonest.
20score
(4,769 posts)WillyT
(72,631 posts)
WorseBeforeBetter
(11,441 posts)and I couldn't agree more.
Kicking -- it's good to see this at the top of GD.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)you need to uptick the swear a bit tho.
but close!
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"The hyper-authoritarian impulse to support WHATEVER THE BOSS SAYS NO MATTER WHAT WHAAARGARBLE is not solely a right-wing phenomenon. "
You can oppose this action, but that doesn't mean that your take makes everyone else's objective suspect. It doesn't mean that those who are "hyper-authoritarian" impulses, doing whatever the "boss says" or emulating the "right wing."
As with Libya, there is a debate to be had, and not everyone who supports intervention in critical times is a RW tool of the MIC.
SENATE RESOLUTION 85--STRONGLY CONDEMNING THE GROSS AND SYSTEMATIC VIOLATIONS OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN LIBYA, INCLUDING VIOLENT ATTACKS ON PROTESTERS DEMANDING DEMOCRATIC REFORMS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES -- (Senate - March 01, 2011)(PDF)
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-2011-03-01/pdf/CREC-2011-03-01-pt1-PgS1068-4.pdf#page=1
<...>
Resolved, That the Senate--
(1) applauds the courage of the Libyan people in standing up against the brutal dictatorship of Muammar Gadhafi and for demanding democratic reforms, transparent governance, and respect for basic human and civil rights;
(2) strongly condemns the gross and systematic violations of human rights in Libya, including violent attacks on protesters demanding democratic reforms;
(3) calls on Muammar Gadhafi to desist from further violence, recognize the Libyan people's demand for democratic change, resign his position and permit a peaceful transition to democracy governed by respect for human and civil rights and the right of the people to choose their government in free and fair elections;
(4) calls on the Gadhafi regime to immediately release persons that have been arbitrarily detained, to cease the intimidation, harassment and detention of peaceful protestors, human rights defenders and journalists, to ensure civilian safety, and to guarantee access to human rights and humanitarian organizations;
(5) welcomes the unanimous vote of the United Nations Security Council on resolution 1970 referring the situation in Libya to the International Criminal Court, imposing an arms embargo on the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, freezing the assets of Gadhafi and family members, and banning international travel by Gadhafi, members of his family, and senior advisors;
(6) urges the Gadhafi regime to abide by United Nations Security Council Resolution 1970 and ensure the safety of foreign nationals and their assets, and to facilitate the departure of those wishing to leave the country as well as the safe passage of humanitarian and medical supplies, humanitarian agencies and workers, into Libya in order to assist the Libyan people;
(7) urges the United Nations Security Council to take such further action as may be necessary to protect civilians in Libya from attack, including the possible imposition of a no-fly zone over Libyan territory;
(8) welcomes the African Union's condemnation of the ``disproportionate use of force in Libya'' and urges the Union to take action to address the human rights crisis in Libya and to ensure that member states, particularly those bordering Libya, are in full compliance with the arms embargo imposed by United Nations Security Council Resolution 1970 against the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, including the ban on the provision of armed mercenary personnel;
(9) welcomes the decision of the United Nations Human Rights Council to recommend Libya's suspension from the Council and urges the United Nations General Assembly to vote to suspend Libya's rights of membership in the Council;
(10) welcomes the attendance of Secretary of State Clinton at the United Nations Human Rights Council meeting in Geneva and 1) urges the Council's assumption of a country mandate for Libya that employs a Special Rapporteur on the human rights situation in Libya and 2) urges the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations to advocate for improving United Nations Human Rights Council membership criteria at the next United Nations General Assembly in New York City to exclude gross and systematic violators of human rights; and
(11) welcomes the outreach that has begun by the United States Government to Libyan opposition figures and supports an orderly, irreversible transition to a legitimate democratic government in Libya.
WilliamPitt
(58,179 posts)Legitimately curious.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)that the problem with Syria is that it's likely a civil war. The people who need to start talking are the leaders on both sides, and the world community can likely help to facilitate that. Still, Assad has to be willing to talk.
Even if the U.S. does strike, all that does is send a message to Assad. Then what? Military intervention in a civil war is absurd.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023548839#post9
Still, I am not opposed to holding Assad accountable. The facts need to be debated. Why would anyone object to the debate or be quick to dismiss the facts?
I mean, as a case for limited strike was being made, there were people claiming that this was for a ground war and would involve mass casualties. That is not responsible.
There was a debate about Libya. Some who supported that intervention, now oppose this one, and vice versa.
I am still skeptical about the aftermath of a strike. Still, I wouldn't be disappointed if Assad loses his ability to launch more chemical attacks.
The point is that some people are guided by the facts.
Senators Boxer and Durbin voted against the IWR, but voted for the Syria resolution:
By Ed O'Keefe
Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted Wednesday to approve a resolution authorizing U.S. military action against the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.
<...>
Final tally: 10 to 7, with one senator voting present.
Who voted yes?: Committee Chairman Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) and Sens. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) (by proxy — was absent due to the Jewish holiday), Benjamin Cardin (D-Md.), Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), Christopher Coons (D-Del.), Richard Durbin (D-Ill.), Tim Kaine (D-Va.). Ranking member Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) and Sens. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.).
Who voted no?: Sens. Tom Udall (D-N.M.), Christopher Murphy (D-Conn.), James Risch (R-Idaho), Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) and Rand Paul (R-Ky.)
Who voted present?: Sen. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.).
- more -
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/09/04/who-voted-for-the-syria-resolution/
Newly-elected Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA) raised a lot of eyebrows Wednesday afternoon when he voted "present" on a resolution to authorize military strikes in Syria, a position advocated by his predecessor Secretary of State John Kerry, who testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee the very same day.
“A `no’ vote would have indicated I had sufficient information on which to base the decision. Which I did not," Markey explained after the vote, as quoted by the Boston Globe.
“I want to make sure I make an informed, correct vote,” he added. “The people of Massachusetts expect their senators to have analyzed all the facts, and I want to make sure I have all the facts before I cast that vote.”
The committee ultimately passed a revised authorization for military action in Syria, including new language effectively making regime change the goal of the intervention, by a margin of 10 - 7, with Markey voting present.
- more -
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/markey-voted-present-on-syria-resolution-due-to
WilliamPitt
(58,179 posts)Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)ConservativeDemocrat
(2,720 posts)Since she is one of the rare people on this board who allow facts to guide her.
Instead of hurling gratuitous insults.
- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)ConservativeDemocrat
(2,720 posts)...unless it's you. You're as pure as the driven snow. And constructive, pro-Democratic, and intensely credible in your non-stop fact free bashing.
- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community
Duval
(4,280 posts)moonlady0623
(193 posts)Thank you.
Autumn
(44,984 posts) 
Ishoutandscream2
(6,660 posts)Preach it!
MissDeeds
(7,499 posts)and I agree completely.
K&R
Little Star
(17,055 posts)
malaise
(268,717 posts)Rec
Liberal_Dog
(11,075 posts)I can't believe some of the nonsense that I have been reading here lately.
K & R.
idwiyo
(5,113 posts)golfguru
(4,987 posts)He clearly drew a red line on chemical weapons in Syria.
He has absolutely no choice except punish Syria.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)Thanks a lot, William Pitt. You broke the President.
WilliamPitt
(58,179 posts)
christx30
(6,241 posts)kill thousands of people and destroy swaths of their country to protect the president's credibility?
forestpath
(3,102 posts)99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)heaven05
(18,124 posts)me either. Never should have started this syria mess in the first place. Never should have started this middle east mess period. Where did it start? The shah?
WilliamPitt
(58,179 posts)When the Brits redrew the Middle East map with no thought to ethnic, religious or cultural differences and installed puppets to do their bidding. Remember how Saddam Hussein said Kuwait was a province of Iraq? It turns out, historically, he was right; the Brits were pissed at the guy running Iraq in 1913, and drew a boundary line across the Fao Peninsula to deny him access to the gulf. Poof! Kuwait.
P.S. The shah was the creation of the overthrow of Mohammad Mosaddegh, who became prime minister of Iran in 1951, began a wide swath of democratic reforms, nationalized the oil industry to use the funds to develop the country...and was deposed in 1953 by a joint Brit-CIA coup so BP could again gain control of the oil. The fellow they replaced him with? The shah.
And so it goes.
P.S. THE book on this is "All the Shah's Men." Get it today, it's great, and explains all of this in detail.
heaven05
(18,124 posts)golfguru
(4,987 posts)I was very young child during Mosaddegh's time but still recall he used to cry a lot just like Boehner. My father used to taunt me when I cried by calling me Mosaddegh. That is how I remember the prime minister.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)I disagree with your position.
I do not believe this can be easily settled by claims of who is "right" here. The issues are complicated and nuanced.
creeksneakers2
(7,472 posts)I believe you that it has happened. I just wonder how much.
I ran a site search for the word "paul-bot" and browsed a couple of pages of links. (Too many to search under "Paul" that weren't relevant.) Most of the times the word "Paul-bot" was used were to describe Edward Snowden, who is a Ron Paul fan. The next most frequent category was people complaining about being called Paul-bots. There were references to actual Paul supporters as Paul-bots. I didn't run across any individual being called a Paul-bot but found a couple of times where the side that usually opposes Obama was called Paul-bots.
While I agree that you are not a Paul supporter and that its stupid to be for something just because Republicans are against it, I wonder why after complaining about being wrongly insulted for your beliefs that you go on to describe those who support the attack with "The hyper-authoritarian impulse to support WHATEVER THE BOSS SAYS NO MATTER WHAT WHAAARGARBLE ."
Isn't this all another case of two sides making unjust characterizations of each other? I also think this OP is a case of exaggerated victim hood. If somebody calls somebody or a side "Paul-bot" why not challenge it on that thread? Re-raising the issue just escalates the fighting.
By the way, I usually support Obama but I think the proposed attack on Syria is a terrible and potentially dangerous idea.
scarletwoman
(31,893 posts)creeksneakers2
(7,472 posts)But I've read it now and only baldguy tried to equate being against the war to standing with Rand Paul. Baldguy got about 180 negative responses and no support from anyone except himself. There were a few posts advocating the strikes.
I think those proportions confirm my previous idea, that there are few who use the Rand Paul slur.
mazzarro
(3,450 posts)
LostOne4Ever
(9,286 posts)That when all votes are counted far more republicans are going to vote for war than democrats, and far more democrats are going to vote against war than republicans. Just like the Amash vote on the NSA.
Also, its important to note that just because Rand Paul is against war does not mean that we are against war for the same reason. He just does not give a shit about the Syrian people (unless they are Christian 
) while we don't want to make things worse and stain our hands with unnecessary and innocent blood.
Thanks for standing up against these baseless accusations!
paulbibeau
(743 posts)Seeing his makes me happy.
Agony
(2,605 posts)Thanks Will! for drawing a line in the sand...
Cheers,
Agony
jazzimov
(1,456 posts)not to accuse you of. I can't speak for others, but I support action in Syria for my OWN reasons, not just because Obama is calling for it.
You claim you do not support "blowing children sideways" - is it better to let them die of nerve gas poisoning? Further, I support bombing military targets, NOT children.
I think you're wrong. I don't think you're boring, however.
HumansAndResources
(229 posts)There is no "good side" in that war, strong indications the Rebels have been using CW, and No Reason At All that Assad would have invited UN-Inspectors in, and then used CW just as they arrived, as he was winning and heading to peace-talks with the upper hand - peace-talks which the US and "rebels" have downplayed, opposed, and generally tried to prevent from occurring. This 'gas attack' was a very effective way to prevent those talks and provide cover for US support of the Western Transnational's Terrorist-Proxy Army in Syria. Qui Bono ?? This is Another War about another Pipeline Route and Petroleum in general.
I feel sorry for those gullible enough to buy the "humanitarian" labelling - but not as sorry as for those who get Murdered For Oil - whether pulverized with shrapnel, or gassed to death. After all, the former can read more history and learn to see the repeating pattern of hypocrisy - the latter are just "dead."
Remember the "Babies Thrown from Incubators"? I wonder if Hill and Knowlton of Madison Avenue are running Public Relations for This War Too ??? Don't kid yourself that its not a P.R. war.
http://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=LmfVs3WaE9Y
Triana
(22,666 posts)
The Wizard
(12,536 posts)Kim Jong Paul is right twice a day.
MotherPetrie
(3,145 posts)
gopiscrap
(23,726 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)if not agree with, many of your policy positions; however, on the topic of whether the US should respond to Assad's use of chemical weapons by launching cruise missiles, we disagree. That's cool ... but I would ask that you consider ... deeply consider ... what if you are wrong?
Would your opposition change, if you actually had something to lose if you were wrong?
Would your opposition to US intervention differ, if you or your loved ones were potential victims of Assad's next chemical attack?
It doesn't take much or particular courage to loudly proclaim a position when you have nothing at stake.
Editted to add: This OP was not really directed to you, in particular; but rather to everyone that has staked out the no invention stance. We all can stake out positions BECAUSE in the end ... we have no price to pay if we are wrong. We can just walk passed our "Oops" and dash to our next outrage ... which for many, should the US not act and Assad (or some other nation with WMD capacity) use chemical weapons, will be "Look at the carnage ... why didn't the US act?"
great white snark
(2,646 posts)It is nice to see though. Very well said.
BlueMTexpat
(15,365 posts)agreeing - for likely the first, last and ONLY time - with Rick Santorum. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/09/05/rick-santorum-opposes-syria-resolution/
We likely have very different motivations. But we come to the same correct conclusion.
Lots of ice skating in Hell right now, methinks.
Obama and Kerry must have been replaced by pod people - they've got the PNAC neocon script down pat.
donheld
(21,311 posts)Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)
Summer Hathaway This message was self-deleted by its author.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)
florida08
(4,106 posts)The UN is split on this. Obama has given up on the UN Security Council. Just wait till he does it anyway against the majority of the country. The fact that more democrats are against this than the right is good. I can at least gather some peace from that. He's about to commit a war crime. The man I voted for was suppose to be ending wars not starting new ones.
And regardless of what Kerry says it is an act of war. How does humanitarian bombing work anyway? Will they see us as liberators and bring flowers? 
orenbus
(44 posts)Thanks for posting these tough but important points, I appreciate what you said. I'm new to the forum and wanted to share with anyone that has yet not contact their Congressman/Senator regarding the upcoming vote and may want some ideas on what to say to them to help them vote no. I've marked the areas where you would replace their name or state with XXXXX. Hope this helps:
####################################
Senator XXXXXX,
First I would like to thank you for currently serving as our Senator from XXXXXXXXX and taking on the responsibility of what will sure to be a tough and very important up and coming vote in the Senate.
In regards to the Syrian strikes you will be voting on, I have to ask that you vote no to the authorization. This attack plan presented by the White House only has options that are bad and worse for the world. The attack proposed will not deter, neutralize, suppress or destroy the enemy capability. It is just going to provoke a larger response in middle east region and the victims of that response will be the United States and Israel. I recommend against this course of action as this is not good war making and further will most likely suck us into yet another conflict in the middle east that will have no end in sight. I understand the arguments being presented for it, but I do not think defending the President's red line is worth one drop of American blood.
One thing to consider is that recently Carla del Ponte, a member of the UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Syria during an interview with Swiss TV was discussing a chemical attack that happened in March and attributed that attack to the rebels. Also Turkey news sources had made reports back in June of this year that rebels had been caught by local authorities trying to cross the border with Sarin gas. In light of Iraq "curveball" reports dealing with WMD evidence on the run up to war in Iraq this unfortunately leads me to question the validity of the evidence regarding the chemical attack in Syria. I do not hold that Assad's regime did not carry out the attack only that I think a decision as important as this should be made with caution (especially as U.S. national interests are not directly involved) we should consider carefully and garner support from as many of the countries in the world if any punitive action is to be made. This strike as presented by the President in my opinion does not have a clear main goal, specific objectives and it is not clear to me that we are prepared and committed to the repercussions or "blowback" that will certainly follow this action, such as say Syria's chemical weapons fall in the hands of Al-Queda backed rebels.
Finally I strongly believe that the United States should not have to shoulder responsibility for any action alone. In light of the recent parliament vote by one of our closest allies England to not support military action and the response from some of our other allies to not be directly involved in the attack I think that should send us a signal for a moment of pause. We need to not be rushed on any decision regarding action against a country that has not attacked us directly or any of our allies, and at this time I sense that the pace this is going is very fast in comparison to other military actions we have been involved in, in the past. One thing we need to consider is that if we go it alone, by definition we will be breaking International Law regarding an attack on a sovereign country against UN charter. There is much more that needs to be considered than what I will be able to include in this email, and probably the most important details come not from things we know, but from things we don't. Suffice to say at this time it does not make any sense to support military action in regards to a Syria strike and I urge you join the rest of the representatives from around our the country that will be voting no on the authorization to be voted on.
Thank you.
Sources regarding chemical attacks on March 2013 attributed to Rebels and Rebels caught crossing the Turkey border with Sarin:
http://p.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/6/syrian-rebels-used-sarin-nerve-gas-not-assads-regi/
http://www.turkishweekly.net/news/151261/russia-asks-turkey-for-info-on-sarin-terrorists.html
GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)And reveal a complete lack of foundation for their own indefensible positions.
Zavulon
(5,639 posts)This may be the best post I've ever seen on DU.
NorthCarolina
(11,197 posts) krispos42
(49,445 posts)K&R
av8rdave
(10,573 posts)
nolabels
(13,133 posts)I was pretty sure the NSA already had them locked into some secret vault, silly me 
Say hello Agent Mike
Oilwellian
(12,647 posts)K&R
Coyotl
(15,262 posts)Only one problem, it seems to be more fact than satire in some circles.
I see a bit of a problem with this thinking:
If the Fuhrer invades Poland, it is not a crime. If Obama attacks Syria, with or without Congressional approval, international law does not apply.
Rex
(65,616 posts)I notice they have stepped up the Left Bashing rhetoric. You would be hard pressed to find a more worthless bunch imo.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Mellow Drama
(47 posts)Obama has to do whatever he feels best. Damned if he does, damned if he doesn't, and it's our job to support the progressive cause regardless of his decision.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)
SomethingFishy
(4,876 posts)I mean Glen Greenwald apparently did something horrible yesterday, isn't that enough to make you change your mind?
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)The incessant bullying to think like a stupid person.
We hate Glenn Greenwald; therefore, NSA spying is unimportant.
We hate Putin; therefore, nothing in that op-ed, not even one WORD, could possibly have any merit to it.
We are to blindly pick a side and wave our flags, STUPIDLY, belligerently, defiantly
ignoring any and all moral, ethical, and intellectual complexities.
We are incessantly bullied to think STUPIDLY, because STUPID THINKING lets corporate thieves and warmongers off the hook.
Cleita
(75,480 posts)"Look at that scarecrow over there, not the real person over here."
Scuba
(53,475 posts)avebury
(10,951 posts)rec this link!
avaistheone1
(14,626 posts)ty
OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)
gordianot
(15,234 posts)I wonder how long a non attack - attack will matter in the midst of a Government shutdown?
Poll_Blind
(23,864 posts)PB
Whisp
(24,096 posts)Agony
(2,605 posts)Cheers!
Pretzel_Warrior
(8,361 posts)Speaking of boring...your writing style could use some tweaks. Try obtaining lessons from our port laureate, Nadin.
KoKo
(84,711 posts)Those of us who "Log In" and "Out" of DU sometimes get up early and read the "Latest" from DU without Logging in .
This a.m. I saw ugly threads attacking Progressive DU'ers as "Haters" or "Racist." I had no idea that there was such stuff allowed on DU these days.
Then...I realized I hadn't "Logged In" and therefore my "Ignore List" wasn't activated so I was seeing all the folks I finally had to put on ignore because they were so OTT and not contributing to DU with Verifiable Links and Information that would lead to Discussion...But that this group's sole interest was to go after DU Progressive Left and to Mock and Make Fun Of the posters here on DU who want to further discussion. It was all about calling we Progressives "Haters" and even Mocking those of us who want to hold the President we Voted for Twice to accountability for his Campaign Promises delivered through his Speeches and the issues his Campaign Promised they HEARD US ON!
I'm so tired of this....so disappointed...........and so much MORE HARD WORK AHEAD..it boggles the mind how it changes and how for every step forward we Progressives Make...whe go back three or four.
