Skip to main content

View Diary: Kerry: Syria's 'undeniable' use of chemical arms 'defies any code of morality'. No action announced (461 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  We're close to the Powell debacle at the UN back (45+ / 0-)

    in 2003; history repeating itself.

    Intervention in Syria does nothing to advance U.S. national security, and anything that further strengthens the rebels also further strengthens terrorism in the region. Assad is no saint and is unworthy of our, or anyone's, support, but the rebels are even less worthy. Religious (read Christian) and ethnic minorities are at great risk with a rebel victory.

    Just saying.

    No more wars of aggression.

    "A popular government without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a prologue to a farce or a tragedy, or perhaps both." - James Madison, 1822

    by Superskepticalman on Mon Aug 26, 2013 at 01:15:14 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Yeah, this feels like a summer rerun. (34+ / 0-)

      This time the American Secretary of State is reallyreallyreally telling the truth about banned weapons.

      Of course he is. Sec. Kerry would never have his fingers crossed behind his back. Um, why don't we see his hands in the diary picture?

      When you triangulate everything, you can't even roll downhill...

      by PhilJD on Mon Aug 26, 2013 at 01:23:53 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  yeah, Obama says the use of CW would be a red line (20+ / 0-)

        and Assad, some months later, is dumb enough to cross right over that red line? Wow, what a coincidence!

        To quote Cuba Gooding Jr., show me the money!

        "In America, the law is king." --Thomas Paine

        by limpidglass on Mon Aug 26, 2013 at 01:26:37 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Since the evidence is still not dispositive as to (22+ / 0-)

          what actually happened and what poison was actually used.

          I swear, the U.S. government has a meth-esque addiction to violence.

          "A popular government without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a prologue to a farce or a tragedy, or perhaps both." - James Madison, 1822

          by Superskepticalman on Mon Aug 26, 2013 at 01:31:26 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  And that's the reason (36+ / 0-)

          given by a number of different analysts, why we're looking for some way to do some half-assed action now that's not quite intervention and not quite anything else.  We'll see.  If we start seeing cruise missile strikes and not a no-fly zone then it's probably what some analysts are saying will be a face saving measure because Obama really doesn't want to get involved but since he gave the red line ultimatum he has to go kill somebody.

          I don't agree with Brzezinski on everything, that's for sure. But he's been spot on with Syria.  Having been a supporter of the supposed humanitarian intervention in Libya which has turned into a total clusterf*k, he's not buying it this time around.

          Brzezinski: I am sad to say that I am one of those who have been saying that there is not much we can do at this stage. This is the reality we have to face. The United States got off to a bad start when the violence erupted. President Barack Obama went on the air and, in schoolmaster fashion, announced that Assad has to leave. It was a wonderful idea, but Assad did not oblige. Did Obama have a plan for making him go? Not really. We went to the United Nations with a resolution designed to force Assad to leave, but we did not consult with the Russians and the Chinese. When they blocked it, we condemned them through the mouth of our ambassador to the UN as being infantile, which is not the way to recruit their support. In brief, we did not have a strategy. The only strategy of significant impact would have been to organize a military invasion.
          http://www.spiegel.de/...
          He says that the Obama admin has no strategy for Syria or the wider regional sectarian war and these attacks will accomplish nothing.  If he goes in and bombs (yes cruise missiles are bombs) Syria to weaken them so that the hired jihadists can go in and pretend they won the war against Assad, what exactly does that accomplish? Putting al Qaeda in charge of Syria?  He should prosecute himself for aiding and abetting the enemy.

          I also don't buy this story about the Assad regime using the chemical weapons, and there are a hell of a lot of others who don't buy it either.  When Assad made a deal with the UN to do the inspections, the U.S. initial reaction was "Nope, too late".  

          Assad has no incentive to use CW. It's suicide for him.  The extremist hired mercenaries and the people who are paying them like the UK and France (former colonial powers in the region) and the Saudis and Qatar Iwho have their own reasons for wanting to remake the region and protect their monarchies) and the US and Israel, have every incentive for using CW and blaming it on the Assad regime in order to bring the Americans in once again and bomb the shit out of yet another country and get us into yet another war.

          It's been ten years since we did this in Iraq.  And yet here we are again with the media war propagandists going right along with it.  When was the last time you saw widespread pictures of dead people, victims of our attacks spread across every newspaper and web site?  When?  That's right, you don't see them.  You don't see them until this government is working like crazy to convince the country to get into another insane war that has no exit strategy.  

          Oh and the last time that France and Israel claimed that Assad used CW trying to shove us into attacking another country and overthrowing another govt? Turns out the rebels did it.  Funny that.  Not funny at all. It's sick, just like this whole thing is sick.

          Another thing Zbig said that if we become the main aggressor here, which is exactly the position we're being put in right this very minute (people are talking about when the Americans bomb Syria, not the UK or France or the Saudis or the Qataris, the Americans) then we're stuck in it. And it could turn into the biggest mess we've seen since WWII. And you thought being in the Iraqi and Afghan quagmire was bad.  Not even close.  We'll be stuck in this longer than Afghanistan, according to Zbig.

          We've even got Colin Powell involved in this.  It's freaking amazing.  All of you who are falling for this deserve what you get for supporting it or for remaining silent or for spouting the propaganda, for decades to come, you remember this day.  I know I will.  I promise you that I'll do what I can to remind you every chance that I get.

          Fucking unbelievable that you can't see the writing on the wall. (referring to those who stand by and watch this happen or worse, cheer it on)

          Brzezinski: "Complex" is an understatement. It is an incredibly messy situation. Until the recent reporting by David Ignatius of the Washington Post, I have not read a serious analysis or description which would give you a breakdown of the nature of the various resistance groups. We know that some of them are Salafists who have the support of the Saudis. We know that groups from Iraq are involved, we know that the Kurds are involved, and we know that a significant number of Syrian refugees flee to Turkey. The point is that it is a comprehensive mess in the context of which you are not in the position to make good choices. Simply plunging into the unknown would not be all that wise. And if we did it anyway, who would be on our side?


          "Justice is a commodity"

          by joanneleon on Mon Aug 26, 2013 at 01:54:57 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  And this time we risk a regional or a world war. (17+ / 0-)

            Iran and Hezbollah are Assad's allies, and there are Russian military personnel in Syria.

            The influence of the [executive] has increased, is increasing, and ought to be diminished.

            by lysias on Mon Aug 26, 2013 at 02:00:32 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Well (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            hester, NedSparks, KayCeSF, NYFM

            Except for the international reporters who were there.  But yeah all those dead people are just faking their own deaths.  I mean doctors without border is just an administration mouth piece

            And Libya as clusterfuck?  I guess you are in the camp thy Ghadafi was a warm cuddly guy.  Or that slaughtered Arabs ain't none of our business?

            Pretty clear what moral character we are looking at here.

            •  Like Arabs haven't been slaughtered since Ghadafi (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              frostbite, joanneleon, tsk, Johnny Q

              fell?

              "A popular government without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a prologue to a farce or a tragedy, or perhaps both." - James Madison, 1822

              by Superskepticalman on Mon Aug 26, 2013 at 02:12:17 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  the question is who used them, not if they were (9+ / 0-)

              used.

              and Doctors without borders qualified their statement accordingly

              Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell. --Edward Abbey

              by greenbastard on Mon Aug 26, 2013 at 02:12:35 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Yes exactly (14+ / 0-)

              Anyone who is not joining a fullthroated call to bomb yet another country clearly just does not give a shit about "slaughtered Arabs." That must be it.

              That's really out of line.

              The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie, deliberate, contrived, and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive and unrealistic. --John F. Kennedy

              by CenPhx on Mon Aug 26, 2013 at 02:16:48 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  You sound just like (13+ / 0-)

              the jerks who were cheering us on to bomb the shit out of a different country a few years ago, calling anyone who opposed the fake humanitarian intervention it a Gaddafi lover.  And look what you created.  A country destroyed.  

              If you're such a crusader why don't you go sign up with the Syrian Free Army?  Why do you sit in your comfortable home and send other people off to war as cannon fodder?  If you are going to cheer on getting us into another war, the least you can do is go volunteer.

              This country doesn't want another war.  

              Look what you've done and what you're about to support doing again.

              ‘Violent chaos’: Libya in deep crisis 2 years since rebels took over

              On this day two years ago, Libyan rebels were transferring their government to Tripoli. However, the anniversary is marred by an acute parliamentary crisis, a severe economic slump and the country becoming the main base for Al-Qaeda in the Maghreb.
              August could have been a month of festivities in Libya, marking the watershed in the rebels’ fight against Muammar Gaddafi, who had to flee Tripoli. Even though it would still be two months before the fugitive dictator was captured and brutally killed, the insurgents celebrated their victory and had their government transferred from the cradle of the revolution, Benghazi, to the capital.

              The euphoria of the revolution has all but gone now, as Libya finds itself mired in deep political crisis as well as economic turmoil.

              “We do not feel the taste of happiness, security and stability,” a resident of Tripoli is cited as saying by Libya Herald, “nor did we have any benefit from the government. People are now feeling insecure and live in fear because of killings that are being witnessed all over Libya.”

              But hey, the oil companies will benefit just as they probably will benefit in Syria. Like Iraq, the nationalized resources will probably be immediately privatized.

              You do realize that these extremists calling themselves the Free Syrian Army killed half of those 100K people who've been massacred, right?  You realize that they don't even have support from a majority of the Syrian people, right?  You realize that they were the ones who carried out the chemical weapons attack in May that they and the  French and Israelis tried to pin on the Assad regime, a thoroughly absurd proposition that was disproven, right?

              How could you be so foolish and destructive as to cheer this slaughter and destruction again? You're supporting pure evil.


              "Justice is a commodity"

              by joanneleon on Mon Aug 26, 2013 at 02:16:55 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  You sound like the jerks (1+ / 1-)
                Recommended by:
                cdreid
                Hidden by:
                mimi

                Who didn't want to do anything about srenenica, Rwanda or hitler

                •  Bullshit. The slaughter in Rwanda was genocide, (13+ / 0-)

                  not war... and we could have ended it with 1000 troops on the ground.

                  That's a reprehensible comparison.

                  When you triangulate everything, you can't even roll downhill...

                  by PhilJD on Mon Aug 26, 2013 at 02:29:00 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  A genuine humanitarian intervention (13+ / 0-)

                    where there is clear action that can be taken that does not cause even more destruction and death, and is not being used as an excuse for another agenda, and isn't a sectarian war being fueled by our own forces and allies, that's a whole different story.  I'd support a real humanitarian intervention.

                    It is a reprehensible comparison from a person bankrupt of facts and ideas and unable to defend his/her position honestly.


                    "Justice is a commodity"

                    by joanneleon on Mon Aug 26, 2013 at 02:42:13 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  Yep (0+ / 0-)

                    And people like these guys opposed it.   Just like the oppose anything that might conceivably help anyone else.  It is absolutely reprehensible.  You are right

                    •  Maybe people "like" me opposed it (7+ / 0-)

                      but I did not oppose it. And I wasn't even alive in Hitler's time.  

                      How despicable of you.


                      "Justice is a commodity"

                      by joanneleon on Mon Aug 26, 2013 at 03:26:36 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  It's a proud tradition you carry on (0+ / 0-)

                        I think we can safely say you would have been in the "none of our business" camp then.  After all, faced with crimes against humanity here, you want to do nothing.  Why would you have been willing to act then when the evidence was equivocal about just what HItler was up to?  It's equivolcal now and you are talking about how taking action against regimes that commit crimes against humanity is "pure evil"

                        Hey, you've declared what camp your in, so don't be surprised if people take you at your word.

                        •  To be fair, most Americans were isolationists back (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Ohkwai

                          then.  That's why we didn't get involved in WWII until being attacked.  Lindbergh was American hero #1 back then, and he was leader of the isolationists on the right, even wanted to break bread with Hitler.  And on the left were isolationist peacenicks who dispised Hitler, but didn't want to do anything about him.

                          IIRC, FDR, like Wilson before him (whom I loathe for unrelated reasons), ran for re-election on a platform to stay out of the war, and most Americans agreed with it and voted for that platform.  Though I'd say most didn't know that the Holocaust was going on, or at least the full extent of it.

                          •  America doesn't seem very isolationist now (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            congenitalefty, joelal

                            I mean, how many different places have we intervened in the last 5 to 10 years? We had troops on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan, we intervened in Libya, we are bombing in Yemen. Maybe Americans are just tired of war after war after never-ending war with ambiguous goals and no end in sight? I think that's definitely a part of it for me.

                            The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie, deliberate, contrived, and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive and unrealistic. --John F. Kennedy

                            by CenPhx on Mon Aug 26, 2013 at 07:16:16 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I agree. The govt isn't isolationist, but the (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            PhilJD

                            public is, not due to ideological concerns or due to being pacifist, but they're just war weary.  I don't like what's going on in Syria, but why is it that the US has to be the one to deal with it?  Let the EU, or better yet, Russia, who is Syria's patron.

                            I just saw on Rachel's or Lawrence's show, a Syrian 10-year old girl on the street trying to guilt-trip President Obama into intervening there, saying,

                            "President Obama, think about your own daughters, are we any different from them?  Shouldn't we be able to grow up like them?  Do you want us to grow up ten years from now and look back and say 'Obama didn't help'". (not an exact quote; I'm paraphrasing from memory)
                            I don't get why she targeted the US for her guilt trip when there are many, many other countries on he planet.
                •  Ok, emotions are clearly very high (13+ / 0-)

                  Mindful Nature, here is why I am not supporting U.S. intervention in Syria -- I'm not clear on who all the actors are; I am not clear who we would be helping and hurting if we bombed there or even set up a no fly zone; I want to wait until the UN inspectors finish their evaluations; I don't trust our politicians to tell me the truth about the situation so I have to base my opinion on other evidence; and I am just not sure that we should be leading the charge (as opposed to supporting a UN mission) involved in another horrific civil war in another country. We keep charging in, believing we are the heroes, and we keep fucking these countries and their people's lives up.

                  Do you honestly believe that that means I don't care about Syria and the people who are dying there "just because they are Arabs" or that I am just like the people who did not intervene in Rwanda or Germany? Do you really believe that?

                  The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie, deliberate, contrived, and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive and unrealistic. --John F. Kennedy

                  by CenPhx on Mon Aug 26, 2013 at 02:45:59 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Same attitude, different excuses (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Tony Situ

                    At the end of the day, Assad could admit that he gassed those people and declare a policy of doing the same in all other oppositions areas and I know we'd still be hearing about how it is all fake or a hoax.  

                    Yes, look at other evidence.  In fact NONE of the evidence comes from governments so far.  It comes from
                    Doctors and reporters and weapons inspectors.  Sure, wait for more

                    But be very clear on two things:
                    1) there is virtually no evidence that this wasn't a gas attack by someone
                    2) there is virtually no evidence any of the opposition groups have any capacity to mount such an attack

                    The only answers are spewing of CY about how it is all a hoax or a false flag operation ginned up because Obama wants a war.  The fact that there is no credible evidence to support that idea either, since he has resisted all calls to do anything for years now doesn't slow anyone down

                    These same folks say te same things every damn time.  They said it in Bosnia. They said it in Rwanda. They said it in Darfur.  Yes, they even said in the. 30s that hitler wasn't that bad and that it was a "Europen problem"

                    So, there are some points of view here that have no real credibility having been wrong so often

                    •  Could you direct me to where in the Constitution (5+ / 0-)

                      We the People of the United States determined that conflicts which do not endanger the people of the United States are any of our business?  

                      What right does the government have to tax me to pay for defending Syrians?   And if it does, I have to believe it's totally optional unlike all those articles and amendments which specify what the Constitution is supposed to provide to We the People of the United States.

                      Heck, the Post Office has a higher priority than Syria.  

                      Now, if Syrians want to be become a state we can talk.

                      •  It's called (0+ / 0-)

                        International law, specifically the Geneva conventions and other international criminal law

                        However, I think you have the national mood perfectly:  if the don't have US citizenship, then obviously they are less than dogs (since we spend tax money on dogs, at least American ones) and can be killed at will.  No biggie

                      •  I agree with your sentiment, but to answer your (0+ / 0-)

                        question, the part about Congress having the power to declare war is where the Constitution says that the US can get involved in conflicts which do not endanger the people of the US.

                        And as far as Congress's power to declare war goes, Congress ceded a great deal of that power to the executive branch by passing the War Powers Act, which says that the CinC can do whatever he/she wants for 30 days without Congressional approval (paraphrasing).

                    •  You call to be clear (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      joanneleon

                      on two things. You then go on to use the qualifier "virtually" on both conditions. That's not the clear language I want to hear in evidence for an invasion of a sovereign country. I want concrete facts.

                  •  I agree with you, the only problem is that Syria (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    jdsnebraska

                    isn't allowing the UN inspectors to do their job.  But yeah, I want more evidence before we intervene.

                •  Really dumb and inappropriate strawman (5+ / 0-)

                  If anything, the genocide-committers in Syria are the al-Nusrah rebels allied with al-Qaida, they are the ones going in and terrorizing villages of Kurds, Christians, Alawites and other religious minorities. Assad, as autocratic as he may be, has done nothing of the sort, which is ironically why the vast majority of war-weary Syrians support the regime against the foreign-supported al-Qaida elements. Frankly, there's no indication that there even was a chem weapons attack of the sort so claimed (many technical experts doubt it) and even if chemical weapons have been used, it's quite possible that al-Nusrah or their various handlers or foreign supporters were behind it. They'd benefit much more than Assad, who's been steadily crushing the al-Nusrah opposition.

                  It would be incredibly stupid to intervene in Syria on the side of the very al-Qaida backed fighters who are also fighting us in Afghanistan, and who want to impose an Islamic theocracy on Syria. Even worse since Syria is an ancient land with a surprising level of religious tolerance. Plus this would draw and Iran and Russia into the war, so it wouldn't stay isolated. And no fantasizing about "limited strikes" with cruise missiles- if those missiles strike Syrian territory, then the US (with the Cameron-led UK and France) would be engaging in a conflict that does not concern us, in support of a side that hates us and wants to impose a medieval regime on the Syrian people. As bad as Iraq, all over again. Totally, absolutely idiotic move and policy.

                •  that's a direct personal insulting attack /nt (0+ / 0-)

                  Civil Men Are For Civil Rights

                  by mimi on Mon Aug 26, 2013 at 09:19:58 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  "Deep political crisis and economic turmoil" (0+ / 0-)

                I guess having let Ghadafi slaughter opponents in Benghazi would have been preferable?  At least we'd have political stability and oil money flowing into Swiss bank accounts!

              •  As someone opposed to the Syrian intervention... (7+ / 0-)

                ...let me suggest that using as a source RT—which did more than oppose intervention in Libya, but backed the murderous Gaddafi and his sons—is a bad choice. There are other choices for pointing out that Libya is a mess right now without papering over the fact that it was a mess under Gaddafi, too, as RT has consistently done, telling quite a number of lies in the process.

                There is, by the way, no move on to privatize oil resources in Libya. Most likely, the concessions will be loosened, but the big gainer won't be those who had concessions under Gaddafi. Instead, it will be China.

                Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

                by Meteor Blades on Mon Aug 26, 2013 at 02:39:15 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Smearing an entire institution (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  tsk, cyberburl, truong son traveler

                  and one that has been doing better reporting on specific subjects than our own media, doesn't fly with me.  It's a weak Pravda! argument at this point, especially given the state of Big Propaganda in this country. It just happens to be the one I had at hand, having used it this morning.  We can find the same information elsewhere too, which makes the source irrelevant as long as the information is true.  Is what they reported true?  Yes, it's true. So the RT/bad choice is a red herring.

                  And if we're going to talk about the murderous Gaddafi, which he was, then we'd better talk about the other murderous forces that we exchanged for him too and the ones in our own camp.  And the ones who were painted as benevolent who on the very day that the flags were raised, raised their own AQ associated flags in Benghazi.  Meanwhile, we just put a young man in prison for life for bogus charges of supporting those same AQ type forces that we ally with and aid and abet and worse.

                  RT was head and shoulders above the US media when reporting on the Occupy movement, to give just one more example.

                  And I'm not papering over anything. I resent that charge, especially coming from someone who so vigorously supported that supposed intervention.  Read my comment about the privatization again.  I said that Iraq's resources were immediately privatized, because they were.  I did not mention Libya. But I fully expect that those will be too and there is no  doubt in my mind that resources and colonialism and imperialism were at the root of that military action, unauthorized by the people, unwanted by the Sec. of Defense, misrepresented as having no boots on the ground when JSOC forces were there even as recently as last fall, and may still be there now.  We won't even mention the gun and weapons running operation out of Libya to arm AQ associated jihadists in Syria.  

                  And we weren't the biggest beneficiaries of Iraq's privatization either, so the issue of it being China who benefits is irrelevant.

                  And again, if you want to talk about murderous, these American Dirty Wars are murderous.  They're not humanitarian interventions.  RT, loathesome as they are on some things, points that out.  I'm glad that they do.  We do plenty of the opposite kind of reporting against Russia and no doubt their people get some truth that they wouldn't get from their own propaganda outlets because of it. That's how it goes.  They've caught up a bit in the past couple of decades.


                  "Justice is a commodity"

                  by joanneleon on Mon Aug 26, 2013 at 03:01:26 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  "Smearing"? That would require my lying... (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    rebel ga, angry marmot

                    ...about RT's coverage of Libya.

                    You're right that I misread your comment on privatizing being about Syria, not Libya. Mea culpa.

                    Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

                    by Meteor Blades on Mon Aug 26, 2013 at 03:07:58 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I'm not clear (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      tsk, truong son traveler

                      Are you not saying that using RT as a source is a bad choice?  I see this all the time here at dkos, claiming that RT cannot be used as a source.

                      If you're saying it's a bad choice only on the issue of Libya or on selected issues, that might be something I could agree with but it's just old Cold War thinking and simplistic thinking  to reject RT as a whole and that's what a lot of people here do.

                      And really, if that RT article on Libya is accurate, and I've not seen anyone prove that it's not, and other organizations are reporting the same thing (they are), I don't see how it's valid to say it's a bad choice.

                      Quite a number of people who supported the AQ associated Libyan "rebels" have back pedaled now and many people who supported the "humanitarian intervention" have now seen it for what it was. The same goes for the Iraq invasion.  Countless people have changed their position on that and I don't see them being condemned as people who can never be listened to again.

                      So basically I don't understand your comment. Maybe I misread it.


                      "Justice is a commodity"

                      by joanneleon on Mon Aug 26, 2013 at 03:32:35 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  It's a bad choice for Libyan coverage because... (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        CenPhx, Tony Situ

                        ...RT utterly compromised itself during the revolution there by repeatedly lying about Gaddafi and what was actually happening in Libya. Not errors in judgment, not mistakes in reporting, outright lies. As someone with extensive contacts in Libya, I'm quite familiar with the situation there, and without a doubt, things are not going well for a variety of reasons.

                        FTR, there were indeed AQ-associated rebels, and, sadly, they have some clout now, but the vast majority were not in their camp, and are not in their camp. The political situation in Libya is far more complicated than that.

                        Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

                        by Meteor Blades on Mon Aug 26, 2013 at 03:58:29 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                  •  RT is like Fox News. Totally agenda driven, (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    jdsnebraska

                    essentially a propaganda outlet.
                    RT's whole agenda = "make the west look bad".
                    Don't forget, RT is state owned and controlled by Moscow.

              •  you r e not quite right there joanne (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                joanneleon, angry marmot, 3goldens

                the thing we have to look in the mirror for and take responsibility is the wholesale destabilization of the wider Sahel that followed libya due to the outflux of weapons and fighters. In retrospect the worst consequence.

                in Libya internally, it is for them, not for us, to either govern themselves or fail to do so.

                the same holds for Syria - which is why I am with you against intervention - but the developments in Libya in the last years (since the overthrow of Gaddafi) you can not credit in "us" or "the west". The collapse of Egyptian effective control over parts of the Sinai - likewise. Yes it happened Yes it is very bad No it is not our fault.

                Somalia eventually has reached an equilibrium of sorts, with which we would do better to find a codification and coexistence, as it is what they have given themselves. With Libya the same will eventually happen. They will have to put order to their country, or declare their disorder the new order, it is not our choice.

                •  I'll take your comment (4+ / 0-)

                  under advisement and I respect your opinion. But given the plan that has been in place since immediately after 9/11 to destabilize seven countries and remake the Middle East, I pretty strongly disagree with you at this point on our innocence.  Libya was one of the seven countries on the list, as were Somalia and Sudan. We've got special ops forces in Mali right now too, posing as French forces.  

                  I agree with you about the weapons running from Libya to Syria.


                  "Justice is a commodity"

                  by joanneleon on Mon Aug 26, 2013 at 03:08:13 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Who in the current administration (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Tony Situ

                    is running this "plan"? Seriously, I see the PNAC / Clean Break stuff tossed around here all the time wrt the Obama admin's MENA policy yet no one seems able, when asked, to articulate precisely how that plan is still in force. Who within the current admin is advancing that agenda?

                    Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time. (Terry Pratchett)

                    by angry marmot on Mon Aug 26, 2013 at 03:21:25 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Why does it require (5+ / 0-)

                      identification of who exactly is driving the neocon foreign policy for it to be valid?  We can observe what's happening with our own eyes which is much more valuable than figuring out who is the closet neocon.


                      "Justice is a commodity"

                      by joanneleon on Mon Aug 26, 2013 at 03:34:21 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Why? Because this is, at least in theory, a (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Tony Situ

                        reality-based community where facts and evidence are supposed to matter. Is there anyone in the current admin who is advancing the PNAC agenda? If so, who, and what's the evidence of their complicity?

                        Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time. (Terry Pratchett)

                        by angry marmot on Mon Aug 26, 2013 at 03:39:19 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Since I don't attend the (3+ / 0-)

                          National Security Council meetings, I don't know who argues for what. Do you?

                          I think, but don't want to put words in your mouth, that what you are arguing is that we have not seen, for the most part, a continuation of the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld foreign policy agenda.  Is that what you're arguing?


                          "Justice is a commodity"

                          by joanneleon on Mon Aug 26, 2013 at 03:42:26 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  I'm arguing that the continued relevance of (0+ / 0-)

                            the PNAC agenda within the Obama administration is quite often stated as fact here, absent evidence. It is more a rhetorical device, presumed to hold explanatory power, than established fact. It is indicative, as Hofstadter wrote, of "the big leap from the undeniable to the unbelievable."

                            Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time. (Terry Pratchett)

                            by angry marmot on Mon Aug 26, 2013 at 04:00:03 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Not just here (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            truong son traveler

                            it's pretty well accepted by just about everyone, across the board, that Obama's foreign policy does not differ much from Bush/Cheney's.


                            "Justice is a commodity"

                            by joanneleon on Mon Aug 26, 2013 at 04:15:34 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                      •  Hey now joanneleon (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        joanneleon

                        It must be just a coincidence. Let's see.

                        Lebanon 2002 - Fail but after Syria goes down we'll settle that one.

                        Iraq - check

                        Libya - check

                        Syria - in progress

                        Iran - the grand prize and one of the reasons for "rolling back Syria".

                        Somalia - under control

                        Sudan - no longer necessary since the country has been split along religious lines, North - South. The resource rich South is staunchly pro-Western.

                        Orwell - "Political language ... is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable"

                        by truong son traveler on Mon Aug 26, 2013 at 06:48:09 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                  •  you open a whole book (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    angry marmot

                    of discussion with this - or I for you - depending ... I dont know how all this could be discussed through in a thread format like here.

                    I´d really like to do it a lot yet that would rather be a matter of a couple of days or weeks of occasional rebuts between the dishwashing, so to say. (Maybe I should bookmark your place on my List of Targets for my eventual World Travel in Futuretime).

                    we have not seen, for the most part, a continuation of the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld foreign policy agenda
                    yes thats precisely what I´d say, since that agenda contained a lot more than just shooting people dead and throwing bombs from the skies. That is staring at squirrels. The actual politics has changed greatly, on the level of policy, and the continuing bureaucratic block - which is there, point conceded - is not at all PNAC like.
              •  The war-stream media can't guilt trip me. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                joelal
                If you're such a crusader why don't you go sign up with the Syrian Free Army?  Why do you sit in your comfortable home and send other people off to war as cannon fodder?  If you are going to cheer on getting us into another war, the least you can do is go volunteer.
                Exactly what I'm thinking.

                All the war-stream media wants to do is pose with soldiers that are about to be killed, as "in-bed" journalists with this or the next administration. They miss the days of Bush's wars.

                They will support the war until they are against it.

                The mainstream media is an evil monger of war. They always have been this way. Thank God for Daily Kos and other internet sites who take the bullshit out of our news.

                Cable news networks and news magazines have a "if it bleeds it leads" mentality. They feed off of corpses every day. It's time to turn off Fox and CNN and NBC and read news that's to the point.

              •  If I may add to that (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                joanneleon, CenPhx

                This is from the Wall Street Journal - 23 August 2013

                Headline: Libya on the Brink of Chaos

                In the country that is Europe’s largest supplier of oil, extrajudicial assassinations abound, foreign embassies are bombed and senior government figures quit in frustration.

                ... Foreign Policy says conditions for ordinary Libyans haven’t improved since the revolution—crumbling schools, filthy hospitals, endemic corruption and pollution of the coastline breed public discontent toward the government.

                And Libya’s oil industry, once a tightly run stalwart of supply to Europe, is in danger of joining the ranks of those in countries where industries are marred by unrest, theft or corruption, as The Wall Street Journal’s Benoit Faucon explains.

                Orwell - "Political language ... is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable"

                by truong son traveler on Mon Aug 26, 2013 at 06:27:30 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Thanks (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  CenPhx, truong son traveler

                  truong son traveler.  I've been reading things like this for months in a lot of different places, more than a year really.  But it's not something that anybody talks about here anymore even though they were all gung ho for the "rebels" and the revolution. When the blood hunt was on, so many people were engaged, and so supportive of the people in Libya.  Then when things started going bad, everybody seemed to lose interest.  And now that there is bloody chaos there, it's almost like a taboo topic.  

                  What happened? Where are all the dedicated revolutionaries here cheering for war in Libya and smacking down anyone who doubted that US supposed interventions turn out well anymore and those who were war weary and not anxious to get us into yet another war when we were already at war in several countries and many more covertly, and fixing to go to war with Iran?  The zealots were plentiful then.  What happened?

                  There are also stories about business people finding it hard to travel there to do business, needing to stay in a very limited area in Tripoli and venturing to other places being so dangerous.  There are all kinds of travel advisories on the country.

                  Today I saw a photo of a courthouse in Benghazi, bombed out, the entire facade of the building gone.  No justice to be had in that building.  


                  "Justice is a commodity"

                  by joanneleon on Mon Aug 26, 2013 at 07:03:36 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Well yes (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    joanneleon

                    it is somewhat embarrassing. Another "bringing them freedom and democracy" action gone bad similar to what has happened in Iraq, exposing the propaganda once again.

                    With respect to Syria could I suggest to all that one of the primary reasons for our interest in overthrowing the present government is the greed/money factor which in turn is related to the quest for wealth, for power and control of the world's most valuable resources, those in the Middle East and in Central Asia.

                    This is in a comment I made in another thread, too lazy to go back and do the links here.

                    http://www.dailykos.com/...

                    Another related link here from back in June.

                    Orwell - "Political language ... is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable"

                    by truong son traveler on Mon Aug 26, 2013 at 07:46:48 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

            •  Chemical weapons? The ultimate in torture..... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              liberte

              Chemical weapons have been rejected in warfare since WWl.

              During the 1920s there was a powerful film about WWl entitled,"All Quiet on the Western Front". The individual, Paul Baumer, which the protagonist in the film was based on, said this about the use of chemical weapons in that war:

              "We remember the awful sights in the hospital, the gas patients who, suffocating, cough up their burnt lungs in clots. Better to take your chances in the open rather than stay in the hollows and low places where the vapors settle."
              http://www.npr.org/...

              People say, what is the difference in dying? Death is death, isn't it?

              Well, the difference is many of those individuals attacked with chemicals don't die right away. They suffer and suffer and suffer and then they die.

              In 1925, the League of Nations approved the Geneva Protocol, which banned the use of chemical weapons. Why did they do this, considering more have died in WWl and other wars from conventional weapons? They banned it because the use of chemical weapons is the ultimate in human torture.

              I hear people here, who spoke out about their loathing of the practice of torture, now summarily dismissing any actions by the US to try and stop the usage of chemical weapons if the claims are accurate.

              Because, as some have said...what's the difference? Death is death.... I don't think so....

              •  But "IF the claims r accurate" is a very BIG "if" (4+ / 0-)

                It's an incredible shame that there seems to be nobody that we can completely trust to determine, and share, in a timely fashion, real evidence about what's happening there, and who's doing what to whom.
                It's especially saddening and frustrating that " our" own President's administration hasn't the credibility to be a trustworthy source.
                But their track record on such issues, and others, makes it clear that they cannot be trusted.

                •  Well, no US president after Iraq, it appears, has (0+ / 0-)

                  the credibility, not just President Obama. The point is, I think the argument is one of, even if we have proof by independent sources, we should not do anything about it.

                  To me, this is a cruel argument. The argument should be one of: Well, what can we do, that will not broaden the conflict in the region?

                  Not: We should not do anything under no circumstances! NO! For, as some have been arguing, death is death....

                  I think this is not the humane way of discussing this issue.

              •  That's the official line (6+ / 0-)

                but it's not true.

                Chemical weapons have been rejected in warfare since WWl.
                See NPR, just today (as well as numerous other news sources).  In fact it's best to read the other sources too as the NPR source is bound to be a bit watered down.  In the case of Syria, it's prudent to read both the American and the Russian point of view if you really want the whole story.
                New Details On How U.S. 'Helped Saddam As He Gassed Iran'

                Newly declassified CIA documents "combined with exclusive interviews with former intelligence officials, reveal new details about the depth of the United States' knowledge of how and when Iraq" used chemical weapons against Iran in the 1980s, Foreign Policy reports.
                [...]
                The Washington Post's The Switch blog writes that the Foreign Policy story shows how "satellite imagery can be used to violate human rights, or to protect them."

                This is the Foreign Policy story it's based on.
                Exclusive: CIA Files Prove America Helped Saddam as He Gassed Iran
                The U.S. knew Hussein was launching some of the worst chemical attacks in history -- and still gave him a hand.

                In 1988, during the waning days of Iraq's war with Iran, the United States learned through satellite imagery that Iran was about to gain a major strategic advantage by exploiting a hole in Iraqi defenses. U.S. intelligence officials conveyed the location of the Iranian troops to Iraq, fully aware that Hussein's military would attack with chemical weapons, including sarin, a lethal nerve agent.

                The intelligence included imagery and maps about Iranian troop movements, as well as the locations of Iranian logistics facilities and details about Iranian air defenses. The Iraqis used mustard gas and sarin prior to four major offensives in early 1988 that relied on U.S. satellite imagery, maps, and other intelligence. These attacks helped to tilt the war in Iraq's favor and bring Iran to the negotiating table, and they ensured that the Reagan administration's long-standing policy of securing an Iraqi victory would succeed. But they were also the last in a series of chemical strikes stretching back several years that the Reagan administration knew about and didn't disclose.

                U.S. officials have long denied acquiescing to Iraqi chemical attacks, insisting that Hussein's government never announced he was going to use the weapons. But retired Air Force Col. Rick Francona, who was a military attaché in Baghdad during the 1988 strikes, paints a different picture.

                "The Iraqis never told us that they intended to use nerve gas. They didn't have to. We already knew," he told Foreign Policy.

                It's time to wake up.  To begin doing that, I recommend reading Jeremy Scahill's book, Dirty Wars, and see the movie too.  Also, you can find many of his talks on YouTube and there's one of C-SPAN from a book signing in Philadelphia and I was there for that one so I can tell you first hand that it's a particularly good one.

                On the Syrian issue, I'd recommend some YouTube segments, interviews with Zbigniew Brzezinski (not a particular favorite of mine but good on this issue).

                There are a lot, but here are a few, for your convenience.
                http://www.youtube.com/...
                http://www.youtube.com/...
                http://www.youtube.com/...


                "Justice is a commodity"

                by joanneleon on Mon Aug 26, 2013 at 03:20:11 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  truong son traveler
                  Asphyxiating, Poisonous or Other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare

                  Signed at Geneva June 17, 1925
                  Entered into force February 8, 1928
                  Ratification advised by the U.S. Senate December 16, 1974
                  Ratified by U.S. President January 22, 1975
                  U.S. ratification deposited with the
                  Government of France April 10, 1975
                  Proclaimed by U.S. President April 29, 1975

                  For more: http://www.state.gov/...

                  It is immaterial if the US was complicit in the use of chemical weapons by any other agents during a military conflict. It is inhumane and I believe all nations should rally against it.

          •  Great commentary on the reality in Syria n/t (3+ / 0-)

            War is costly. Peace is priceless!

            by frostbite on Mon Aug 26, 2013 at 02:14:06 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Doctors Without Borders have verified the use (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Superskepticalman

            of chemical weapons.

            The uncertainty is by whom.

            I appreciate that President Obama is going to find out before acting. I appreciate that he has done his level best to get and keep the US out of wars. I appreciate his style of looking at all alternatives before taking action. If he chooses to act...I, for one, will trust that he did so out of no better alternative being present.

          •  I heard one analyst add... (0+ / 0-)

            ...CW use is banned in international law and what probably will happen is we will use our weapons to punish Asad severely enough to make the point he shouldn't use them again and then back off. maybe command and control centers and such. That would keep us out still and give us the cover of backing international law and not any of the various sides.

            I try not to come here more often then I do.

            by Maroon watch on Mon Aug 26, 2013 at 03:37:40 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Gen. Dempsey (0+ / 0-)

              sent a letter to Sen. Levin after either McCain or Graham demanded that he give the Armed Services  committee his position on Syria.  He laid out what he thought the options were.  In order to control the chemical weapons, a pretty large operation is required, including troops on the ground and a partial no-fly zone.

              You can read the letter here: http://www.levin.senate.gov/...

              What's more likely is cruise missile strikes that weaken Assad's forces enough to give the failed jihadist mercenaries a better shot of winning this proxy war so everybody can say that the phoney rebels overthrew Assad, not the countries who colonialized this region once before (UK and France) or the monarchies in the region (Gulf states) or the imperialists with a plan to remake the Middle East (US and Israel).

              They'll have to really cripple the Syrian forces a lot. These mercenaries have been losing despite stepped up funding, arms, training, American special ops forces help, etc.  We can only give them certain types of weapons because the strongest mercenaries are the ones who are America's mortal enemies and would kill our citizens and troops with those arms at the drop of a hat.  


              "Justice is a commodity"

              by joanneleon on Mon Aug 26, 2013 at 04:35:23 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  Bombing the neocon hit list into the Stone Age (4+ / 0-)

            is the goal here, and they will accomplish it no matter what they have to do to get it done.

            PNAC neocons want to bomb the following countries into the stone age for no other reason than to leave them in rubble and ruin for hegemony and natural resources:

            Iraq, check.

            Lebanon, check.

            Libya, check.

            Syria, almost.

            Iran, working on it, will happen after Syria.

            Iraq is proof that democracy wasn't the goal in that war, nor WMDs.  Backing Al Qaeda "rebels" proves they don't care much about stopping the terrorists.  I also don't think they care about the regime as long as it lets them steal their country's oil, gas, etc.  Assad nationalized the natural resources, which is what makes him a target.  

            Information is the currency of democracy. ~Thomas Jefferson

            by CIndyCasella on Mon Aug 26, 2013 at 04:05:49 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Love your sig line limpidglass. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          truong son traveler

          Thanks, I needed a laugh.

          "In America, the law is king."

          Brought To You By That Crazed Sociologist/Media Fanatic rebel ga Be The Change You Want To See In The World! Gandhi

          by rebel ga on Mon Aug 26, 2013 at 03:09:14 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Surely you remember his saying... (35+ / 0-)

        ...that the use of phosphorus in Fallujah as a "moral obscenity." Don't you?

        Me either.

        Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

        by Meteor Blades on Mon Aug 26, 2013 at 01:29:14 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Syrian bad guys better watch out, (0+ / 0-)

        this sounds a lot like what he said about bin laden.

        the president "will be making an informed decision about how to respond".
        Syria
        What is wrong with these people anyway? How do they justify using chemical warfare?

        And why do they do this?

        The Middle East was the first society. Everyone always thought it the base of knowledge and intellectualism.

        But it seems to me that regimes like in Syria and malcontents elsewhere; over there, have totally lost all civilized thinking!

        And btw, why can't Israel and it's Arab neighbors get along, have peace?

        They can still hate each other. Just agree to Peace.

        By now they're all even when it comes to beating the hell out of each other. So this is the time for Peace☮.

        Rec'd And Tipped This Diary. We all missed you when you stopped writing MB, even for that short time.

        We all had MB withdrawal. So glad your back!

        ☮☮☮☮
        CeaseFire
        1603 W Taylor St MC 923  
        Chicago, IL  60612  
        312-996-8775

        CeaseFire; The Campaign To Stop The Shooting, uses a public health model to stop shootings and killings, with a combination of Science and Street Outreach to track where violence is heating up and then cool the situation down. "Spread The Word, Change The Thinking".

        I have new diaries. This is one of my favorites. Actually; they're all my favorites, but I really like this one. For anyone interested. They don't call it dope for nothing
        ☮PEACE☮

        Brought To You By That Crazed Sociologist/Media Fanatic rebel ga Be The Change You Want To See In The World! Gandhi

        by rebel ga on Mon Aug 26, 2013 at 02:56:46 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Exeter that it is completely different (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JayBat, flevitan, akmk, cdreid

      1) Obama is hardly champing the bit here, unlike Bush. He could have done this in April if he'd wanted to. He could have been involved anytime in the last two years but hasn't

      2) it would be hard to be more at risk than with an Assad victory.  He has already killed thousands and left alone there will be more chemical architects.  This is a regime that has decades long history of leveling uppity villages

      3) the notion that the rebels are worse seems to swallow regime propaganda wholesale.  There are also secular rebels groups.  They aren't all al Qaeda or al nusra.  Remeber how we kept hearing how bad the Muslim brotherhood was in Egpyt, but obviously the military regime is vastly worse.  Don't take islamophobia as a guiding principle.

      4) and an attack in response to actual use of chemical weapons isn't a war of aggression.  Like it or not, there is also a duty to protect that people typically give short shrift to.  Then again on US law, you aren't personally required to do anything to help anyone ever, so maybe we are just living our values

      So, yeah, except for being totally different it is just the same

      •  At the time, Dubya "looked" reluctant as well... (5+ / 0-)

        And the most effective fighters among the rebels are the religious fundamentalists.  Not hard to see who's going to win the post-Assad "peace in their time" if Assad falls.

        And the Egyptian people (majority of whom aren't MB) still prefer their military to the MB, so that rationale fails.

        Problem is that now August is no better than April. No real way to project sufficient military power to oust him but enough to make life harder for all Syrians, not to repeat that ousting him is a far worst deal for the majority of Syrians.

        "A popular government without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a prologue to a farce or a tragedy, or perhaps both." - James Madison, 1822

        by Superskepticalman on Mon Aug 26, 2013 at 02:10:48 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Obama's duty is to the American People (6+ / 0-)

        Nothing in the Constitution says that the United States is responsible for looking out for every other people on earth.  This is all neoliberal/neocon American exceptionalism.  

        People keep making comparisons to WWII.  Well we helped found the UN after WWII.  Take it to the Security Council.  Let Russia veto it.  

        Every problem is not our problem, but the United States has many problems that our Commander in Chief needs to focus on right here at home.  

    •  Can't really compare to Iraq, that was full scale (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mmacdDE, karenc

      invasion with nearly 200k troops with no evidence, this is missile strikes from the sea with evidence.

    •  The war profiteers never sleep and never (11+ / 0-)

      tell the truth. Apparently the hawks can't even wait for the UN reports. Certainly the propaganda is one sided, and the evidence not strong enough to present to the UN.

      War loving politicians have a pretty bad record when it comes to the claims of criminal behavior on those that we have demonized in a war loving media.

      In Iraq we not only had the WMD propaganda and lies, we also had the 1990 infamous baby killing lies that claimed that Saddam soldiers had take incubators away from newborn infants in a Kuwaiti hospital. It was all orchestrated by a Washington PR firm and phony congressional hearings with well coached witnesses.

      In Syria we are now on the same side as AlQaeda. It seems apparent to me that the rebellion does not have the support needed from the people that it needs for a win. What would Assad hope to gain by using WMDs? This makes no sense. I have seen too much pre-war propaganda to believe any such spin that promotes wars.

      While I understand that producing arms creates jobs, the same amount of money used to produce almost anything else would produce many more jobs without the stains of the terrorism of wars.

      War is costly. Peace is priceless!

      by frostbite on Mon Aug 26, 2013 at 02:05:12 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Right on, unless there is clear, unequivocal (0+ / 0-)

      evidence that the alleged chemical weapons were actually employed by the Syrian government, there are too many other possibilities to act.  What if, what if, it was Mossad or one of the rebel groups, or Al Qaeda seeking to lure the US in?  Too murky for action, for sure.  I'm skeptical for one thing because Bashir Assad may be evil but he's not stupid.  We've destabilized enough Middle Eastern states to last us for fifty years, at least...

      They that have power to hurt, and will do none

      by richardvjohnson on Mon Aug 26, 2013 at 03:16:31 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  This is chemical weapons, not government vs. ... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      CenPhx

      ... rebels.

      What is appropriate action by us as a member of the world community against what civilized people regard as an atrocity above and beyond simply making war on one's own people?

      I'm not taking sides on the matter, just raising the practical question. We stood by - and were widely and historically reviled - while Germany worked its way in the holocaust. And obviously, we cannot intervene in every internecine dispute around the globe. But is the use of chemical warfare beyond the pale? If not, what is?

      2014 IS COMING. Build up the Senate. Win back the House : 17 seats. Plus!

      by TRPChicago on Mon Aug 26, 2013 at 03:47:58 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Why are chemical weapons the arbitrary thresh- (0+ / 0-)

        hold when the killing of hundreds in Egypt by the military isn't.

        Answer: the US "likes" Egypt; doesn't "like" Syria.

        Still arbitrary.

        "A popular government without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a prologue to a farce or a tragedy, or perhaps both." - James Madison, 1822

        by Superskepticalman on Mon Aug 26, 2013 at 07:04:45 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  All mass murder is evil; chemical mass murder ... (0+ / 0-)

          ... is even worse.

          Most decisions in the face of contention put things on one side or the other. Arbitrary or not, the prospects of chemical and nuclear weapons should put them in a class by themselves.

          2014 IS COMING. Build up the Senate. Win back the House : 17 seats. Plus!

          by TRPChicago on Tue Aug 27, 2013 at 03:53:24 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site