Skip to main content

View Diary: The Problem With Watching MSNBC: The Manipulation of Liberals (254 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I happened to catch Now With Alex Wagner today (6+ / 0-)

    She let serial war whore Jamie Rubin rattle on at length in favor of military intervention in Syria... You know the routine... WMDs... blah, blah... willing allies, blah, blah... chemical weapons (mushroom cloud)  in Boston... blah, blah...

    She couldn't be bothered to point out that chicken hawk Rubin said exactly the same things about Iraq a few years ago.

    But, of course, Rubin is purportedly a Democrat, so it's okay. Balanced, don't you know.

    Most truths are so naked that people feel sorry for them and cover them up, at least a little bit. --Edward R. Murrow

    by chuckvw on Tue Apr 30, 2013 at 05:05:40 PM PDT

    •  That's exactly the kind of shit I'm talking about. (5+ / 0-)
    •  I happen to believe that armed intervention (0+ / 0-)

      in countries and situations where large numbers of innocent civilians are being massacred is both justified and necessary, but only if done via a coalition that includes regional countries and other global powers a la the first Gulf War, and not just one lone superpower, which just invites incompetence and abuse, and only if applied universally and not just where we have national interests or the people are the same skin color as ours.

      "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

      by kovie on Tue Apr 30, 2013 at 05:26:15 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  So what to your mind meets those criteria? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        aliasalias

        The sanctions following the first gulf war cost the lives of half a million innocent people, many of them children.

        Which side(s) would you intervene on behalf of in Syria, and how do you prevent that intervention from setting off a regional conflagration from Lebanon to Iran?

        In the best of all possible worlds there would be an international body to take on such situations objectively and universally. The U.S. would never accept it.

        And most of the world is quite rightly suspicious of U.S. "leadership" in these situations.

        Most truths are so naked that people feel sorry for them and cover them up, at least a little bit. --Edward R. Murrow

        by chuckvw on Tue Apr 30, 2013 at 05:55:32 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Umm (0+ / 0-)

          The region HAS experienced a conflagration from Lebanon to Iran (and beyond), on and off since the 50's. Where have you been?

          And the first Gulf War did not cause the sanctions that led to those deaths. I believed then that once we went in we should have taken it all the way and removed Saddam. Would have saved us a second war and possibly 9/11.

          Sorry, as a Jew, I instinctively react harshly when liberals say we should never intervene because it's morally wrong, for obvious reasons. That itself is morally bankrupt and a cheap excuse. When your neighbor is beating his family, you INTERVENE, period. You just don't overstay your welcome or pretend that he's beating his family as an excuse to barge in and destroy his house.

          I do agree that it should be international and not just the US, which I thought I made clear in my comment. Why do people always assume is has to be the US in charge? Not only are we bad cops, it's a shared responsibility.

          "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

          by kovie on Tue Apr 30, 2013 at 08:17:52 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I repeat (0+ / 0-)

            What interventions are you advocating? What form will they take? Who will participate? Whose lives and treasure will be on the line? There are degrees of conflagration, as I'm sure you know. Nothing happening today is remotely similar to the Holocaust, so injecting that into the discussion is a bit glib. Rwanda perhaps, but liberal interventionists didn't kick up much of a fuss in that case.

            I'm not a liberal and my position isn't entirely a moral one. I'm more a student of catastrophically unintended consequences. Something American leadership is really good at. I don't assume that the Americans "have to be in charge". It's just a pretty good assumption that they will be.

            You show me a truly humanitarian, international military intervention unencumbered by American, European, Israeli, or oil interests generally in the Middle East and I will support it.

            In the case of Syria, I would support dropping food and medical supplies all over the country and spending what it takes to make life as livable as possible for refugees until all of the various sides accept the inevitable stalemate... from which some sort of peaceful outcome can be wrestled. That's probably the best outcome we can hope for.

            I know you don't find that a satisfying approach. We clearly disagree. For my part, I do so respectfully.

            Most truths are so naked that people feel sorry for them and cover them up, at least a little bit. --Edward R. Murrow

            by chuckvw on Tue Apr 30, 2013 at 09:18:24 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  How about destroying the Syrian military (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              chuckvw

              That would allow the rebels to take over. We could do it in a few weeks. The reason we don't is because we fear Assad being replaced by Islamists and even worse regional unrest given its effects on Iran, Lebanon, Israel, Turkey and Jordan. But what's the alternative, letting thousands continue to be massacred? And we've had a lot of holocausts since the Holocaust, in Rwanda, Sudan, Sierra Leone, Ivory Coast, Indonesia, etc., in which the world has either done nothing, or helped the oppressors. I'm not blaming the US so much as the world. But the US is its biggest power and thus has proportionate responsibility. But so do China, Russia, India, Europe, etc.

              "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

              by kovie on Tue Apr 30, 2013 at 09:39:36 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I agree with this (0+ / 0-)
                But so do China, Russia, India, Europe, etc.
                If the UN could function as there was some hope it would after WWII, perhaps we wouldn't be having this conversation. That was possibly one of the greatest squandered opportunities to make a better world in our history.

                Thousands are being killed on all sides in Syria, and the imposition of hardcore sharia law and ethnic cleansing are underway in rebel held areas. Destroying the Iraqi military and governmental infrastructure was a disaster and cost countless more lives. It's just not that simple, IMO.

                Most truths are so naked that people feel sorry for them and cover them up, at least a little bit. --Edward R. Murrow

                by chuckvw on Tue Apr 30, 2013 at 10:05:23 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site