Skip to main content

View Diary: What to do if Syria crosses the "red line" and uses biological weapons... (168 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Pretty much. Nailed it! n/t (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Rizzo, protectspice, corvo
    •  Tell that to a Holocaust survivor (n/t) (11+ / 0-)
      •  You're comparing WWII to the situation today? n/t (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Nattiq, ciganka, corvo
        •  It's far less of a stretch... (11+ / 0-)

          than your suggestion that profiteering is the only reason for ever taking military action.

          •  What's your interpretation of the last 12 years of (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Nattiq, corvo

            war?  Let's focus on that.

            •  Who's talking about starting a war? (7+ / 0-)

              What I've seen being discussed is more like a limited UN-led intervention akin to what was done in Libya.

              •  I'd like nothing better Trix (4+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Trix, koNko, CwV, native

                But logistically speaking, it'd be a helluva lot harder to have a humanitarian intervention in Syria than it was in Libya. For one thing we had better access to the rebel groups in Benghazi. Then we have to allow for foreign interest in the region:Russia has ships right off the coast...the Iranians and Lebanese would also become involved. If this gets out of hand it could set off a major conflagration.

                In this instance, it's wise to find a more diplomatic route...I think Russia might be that route. If we can get rid of Assad, they can set up a provisional government without removing infrastructure. Libya has had to rebuild all of its social infrastructure and they still have to resolve the latent militancy that exists with different factions.

                The sooner we resolve this, the can't stretch out too much longer with the obscene loss of life and because of the danger from extremists.

                "In the depth of winter I finally learned that there was in me an invincible summer."- Albert Camus

                by valadon on Sat Apr 27, 2013 at 12:22:28 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  No doubt (n/t) (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  valadon, wishingwell
                •  BINGO! (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:

                  Assad holds on because of the Russians.
                  They receive a lot of oil from the western end of the pipe in Syria. If they lose access to that then they would rather lose the whole pipe so it doesn't feed Europe and the West, forcing Iraq's production to be shipped north and east, to Russian and China.
                  And that's why we are stepping very carefully.
                  We want that oil to flow west, even if it means that the Russians buy some of it.
                  It's all part of the same game.
                  And Diplomacy is the key.
                  War is the admission of failure of Diplomacy.
                  I hope Kerry was a good choice.

                  If I ran this circus, things would be DIFFERENT!

                  by CwV on Sat Apr 27, 2013 at 07:54:46 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Let's hope (0+ / 0-)

                    our new found friendship with respect to counterterrorism extends to the Syria problem. They are the linchpin.

                    "In the depth of winter I finally learned that there was in me an invincible summer."- Albert Camus

                    by valadon on Sat Apr 27, 2013 at 11:08:44 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

              •  Libya there WAS a war (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                and the outcome was worse than the previous regime.   As bad a Gadaffi was, that country is now destroyed.   No governemnet, no authority, just militias and islamic fundmanetalist gangs.    A total disaster.

            •  The neoconservatives started this. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              Boehner Just Wants Wife To Listen, Not Come Up With Alternative Debt-Reduction Ideas

              by dov12348 on Sat Apr 27, 2013 at 12:21:03 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Easy (0+ / 0-)

              A series of hot wars and cold wars in West Asia functionally equivalent within West Asia to WW1 (the 1991 Kuwait war), WW2 (Iraq 2003+), and the Cold War (the current two alliance standoff pitting Jerusalem+Riyadh vs Damascus+Teheran, with Baghdad/Iraq sorta partitioned a la Berlin/Germany) in Europe.

              What WW1 did in Europe was demolish a couple of the most obsolete of the competing empires on the continent.  What WW2 did was demolish an alliance of one defeated but undestroyed empire project merged with several defeated ones, who in aggregate formed a disorder creating third alliance (aka Axis) trying to defeat two larger, older entities (aka Western Allies, and USSR) it was juxtaposed between.  This endeavor failed, and this third power in the continent was comprehensively destroyed and partitioned.  The Cold War was the standoff of the two remaining empires/alliances in, one of which folded after 40some years and obsolescence.  And the second of which has essentially peacefully disintegrated and its European portions have remerged as a federation.

              The ways the U.S. got into WW1, WW2, and the Cold War wasn't pretty either.  They were also formally ambiguous, with Anglophilia and Western Eurocentrism and a significantly distorted picture of Communism largely obscuring the difficulty of the rationale to them.  But as we see in Europe today, the result was the best that could be achieved.

              It's the same in the Middle East now and West Asia more generally.  The crushing of dictators, rolling back of empires and hegemonies, and fighting down of reactionary political forces- be they identified with Right or Left- ultimately works, allowing democracy (first the conservative variety, which is dysfunctional, but then increasingly healthy liberal forms) to to germinate and grow as the authoritarian generations in these countries slowly die off and settle their historical disputes more peaceably.  This is the historical pattern visible subsequent to American military engagement for a generation each in Western Europe, East Asia, Eastern Europe, and in small fashions already in West Asia.

              It is evident also, though with ambiguities, to the first generation of overseas American involvements, the 1890s to 1920s actions in the Atlantic, Caribbean, and Pacific Oceans and destruction of the residual overseas empire of Spain.  The hard problem there is Cuba, but which wouldn't be the case if Cuba dictatorship weren't propped up by undemocratic and reactionary (albeit Left-identified) forces elsewhere.

              So: the overall pattern is that every generation the U.S. gets involved in a major region of the world that lies farther away from the northeastern U.S., fights objectionable or ambiguously justified wars there against dictators and rough equivalents in that part of the world for a generation, and then moves on.  Every region of the world so affected has been highly forgiving of this in the long run because people there perceive that the causes of justice and liberal democratization and resolution of their grievances were served, no matter the horrible realities of death, lies, misunderstandings, and destruction inflicted- which pass.

              Attacks against the U.S. that we see are not made because of the injustice of past wars.  No Germans, Russians, Vietnamese, Chinese, Spaniards, Italians, Iraqis, Afghanis, Japanese, Koreans, or Frenchmen have yet seen reason to retaliate violently in the U.S. due to wars their militaries lost, or even in significant scale overseas since the wars involving their peoples have ended.

              The attacks that we do see- notably 9/11 and the one here in Boston just two weeks ago- are due precisely to the U.S. holding out, to the U.S. not doing enough or not the right things in the perps' part of the world to achieve the end of empires, dictators, abusive monarchs, warlords, etc.  

              The morally sensible part of the world demands and expects that we do these things.  And if the U.S. employs objectionable people and politicians to do the violence, that's not a problem of primary significance.  (What if morally exemplary people were the only people willing and able to fight wars of liberation and forced to die in them- that would be to expend the best peoples' lives on achieving death of the worst, which is perverse.  Let the very horrible fight and die in defeating the most horrible, which is what they both desire.)  What your Moscow-funded reactionary Leftist propaganda outlets and shills, such as Pepe Escobar, who serve the downscale Capitalist and petrostate empires of Moscow and Beijing say is in service of these empires and their Old Orders.

      •  actually there is some historical context (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        as the US did turn away Jewish refugees and repatriated them to Europe.  Question may be if the US should now begin accepting Syrian refugees

      •  You might recall (0+ / 0-)

        that we didn't enter war against the Third Reich until it declared war on us.

        Dogs from the street can have all the desirable qualities that one could want from pet dogs. Most adopted stray dogs are usually humble and exceptionally faithful to their owners as if they are grateful for this kindness. -- H.M. Bhumibol Adulyadej

        by corvo on Sat Apr 27, 2013 at 09:00:55 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Just curious, but was Halluburton involved in (0+ / 0-)

      Korea in 1950. I just askd because my dad was part of the First Marines who liberated Seoul not once but twice. And the people of Seoul are still very very happy about that. They would all be living under Kim Sun family now had we not at least tried to intervene back then.

      Imagine all of Korea being like North Korea.  

      Follow PA Keystone Liberals on Twitter: @KeystoneLibs

      by wishingwell on Sat Apr 27, 2013 at 06:59:32 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Halliburton was an oil field company (0+ / 0-)

        started by a brilliant man - a chemist I believe, named Earl P. Halliburton.  He came up with some great patents that most involved oil field activities.  From his hard work and genius, Halliburton was established in Duncan, Oklahoma.  It was a cornerstone of the community, and provided jobs and lived the life of a decent corporate citizen.  

        Then it grew up to be a big monster, owned a bunch of subsidiaries, and the big boys screwed everyone they could on ground in Duncan, Oklahoma, moved out of this small town because big boys don't want offices in small towns.  I believe they moved to Houston, I am not sure.  

        However, it was always Earl's intent that this company be a pillar for the small town of Duncan, OK.

        And that, boys and girls, is the story of Halliburton in simplistic terms as I know it.  

        It gets on my nerves, and you know how I am about my nerves...

        by ciganka on Sat Apr 27, 2013 at 07:45:39 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  wishingwell - you are thinking of KKR (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        a former Halliburton subsidiary that provided services in Iraq. KKR was spun out of Halliburton around 2005 and there is no connection between the two any more. KKR was formed through several acquisitions and the focus was the oil and gas industry. They had no role in the Korean War.  

        "let's talk about that"

        by VClib on Sat Apr 27, 2013 at 07:50:15 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  How do you know (0+ / 0-)

        what North Korea really is like? And don't tell me you've been reading the mainstream media aka American propaganda.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site