Skip to main content

View Diary: BREAKING: Damascus explosion kills Defense Minister, other key figures (205 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I do not support any dictators (0+ / 0-)

    Stop lying.   I have repeatedly said that both the Gaddafi and the Assad regimes are terrible.   As bad as Saddam Husseins was.   But I have been against intervention in all 3 cases.  Libya-Syria-Iraq.  Were you against the Iraq war?  If so, does that make you a supporter of Saddam Hussein?  Think about what you write.  Dont be ridiculous.

    •  Having opposed intervention (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      does not mean that one must piss all over the process of making the country work afterwards.

      There's a lot that remains to be figured out, but Libyans have a lot of reason to be hopeful right now. That can be true whether you liked the way their revolution panned out or no.

    •  I was in favor of toppling Hussein (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      by force in 2002.  But against any significant occupation, any U.S. imposed government, adjudicating any potential civil war, and sure the Bush crowd were all the wrong people to do it.

      Average Iraqis felt the same way.

      •  Oh, before you ask: I was in favor (0+ / 0-)

        of intervention in Bosnia/Kosovo and toppling Milosevic before that.

        I wouldn't want to rub in how Serbia and the countries around it are unambiguously close to liberal democracies now rather than the neocolonial slave kingdoms predicted by Putinists.  

        Germany, Japan, South don't have to like wars to admit that maybe one horrible all-resolving war is necessary to yield peace for many generations.  Maybe in fact the end of wars in a place or region forever.

      •  Ok, (0+ / 0-)

        You were on George Bush's side.   I should not be surprised with your current positions.   Just for the record, Obama was against toplling Hussein by force in 2002.

        •  No, (0+ / 0-)

          Hillary Clinton's.

          Obama just played you guys.  When he actually had to make an executive decision rather than play to what was popular with stupid Democrats, he authorized the intervention in Libya.  He's a charlatan on this stuff.

          •  HRC's and John Kerry's. n/t (0+ / 0-)
          •  At least you seem to be (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            consistent.   Unfortunately, you are consistent on neoconservative ideas.   Hillary is most definitely a neocon as bad as McCain and Lieberman.

            •  You're consistent too, (0+ / 0-)

              in deliberately not understanding the differences between, here, liberal interventionism and neoconservatism.  Until someone embarrasses you into admitting them.

              Neoconservatism is about taking over countries for American or Israeli advantage and imposing pretend democratic governments.  It's essentially colonial/imperial.  It's nonproductive for the people of the country taken over.

              Liberal interventionism is about actually getting democracy in place and letting it evolve from its initially immature and conservative form to relatively mature and liberal form.  This isn't possible without these countries having true sovereignty.  It's all about the people of the country.

              You're actually the conservative, I'm the liberal in this argument.  Sure, you have no hope of prevailing unless you can somehow convict me of being neocon.  But to do that you have to misdefine it in some false or sloppy way (maybe it's defined in such an accuracy-free way in the circles you are in).  Or you're simply prevaricating.  

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site