Skip to main content

View Diary: An American war in Syria? NO! (123 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Arms to who? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Support what civilians? Air strikes on what?

    Who are we to decide that? It's not our country, it's THEIRS. It's their fight.

    Sanctions and a no fly zone, fine. Anything else, no.

    It's like getting involved in a family fight. No matter what side the outsider picks, they're screwed.

    •  Here is the issue (0+ / 0-)

      A couple of simplified breakdowns. The FSA and allies are in opposition to a dictator who has used chemical weapons and other nasties on the people of Syria.  The family fight analogy only works if your cant clearly find a position. This is more like a family with an abusive husband who beats the crap out of the wife and kids.  I don't think "it's a family matter" is the appropriate response.   We can judge by actions, and the fact that it is on the other side of some arbitrary line makes no difference.  We are all humans after all

      Now, the FSA and allies control some territory but are having difficulty administering it, while Islanists are better set up and organized to do it.  In those areas free of Assad's control we can and should help restore basic services.  

      Touch all that arises with a spirit of compassion

      by Mindful Nature on Fri Apr 26, 2013 at 09:47:06 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  The ultimate irony in all this... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Mindful Nature that Assad is the last bastion of the Baathist movement, whose original goals,  if not the means to achieve them, don't sound at all half bad from a progressive standpoint.

        "Democracy" can be a two-edged sword, if the popular will is to, for instance, embrace theocracy and live under Sharia Law.

        I, old commie that I am, have come to cast a jaundiced eye over my own knee-jerk reaction that "popular uprising" has to automatically be a noble cause and be supported on general principle.  

        I happen to think that a "modern" secular state with development that benefits a lot of its citizens and keeps its oligarchs somewhat under control is actually preferable, even if it takes some stick (h/t Francis Urquhart)  to keep the reactionaries from disrupting things with their anti-modernist fanaticism.

        Baathism is old enough now to have thoroughly matured and become corrupted by the usual culprits of greed and tribe and excess.  It gets so bad that Sharia looks good.  But once upon a time the existing order got so bad that Baathism looked good.

        don't always believe what you think

        by claude on Fri Apr 26, 2013 at 08:28:45 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site