Skip to main content

View Diary: Obama's 'message' to Syria (413 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Bad idea. (5+ / 0-)

    We don't know these people.

    •  Bad idea for deterrence? (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Bush Bites, inclusiveheart, wonmug

      We're against Assad which defaults you to being for "those people."

      I'm making a point here, I don't see any good "something" we can do here.

      •  There's nothing to be done. (4+ / 0-)

        Nothing that's going to work. Life sucks in civil war. Especially where there's chemical weapons.

        •  Agreed (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          JVolvo

          Now if folks can just apply reasoning to "doing something" the way you did to my suggestion.

          •  Why are bombs ... (5+ / 0-)

            ... the only options that anyone is discussing?

            The way I see it, there's at least three courses.

            1. Do nothing; we accept that people will die by the hundreds of thousands, and let it happen.

            2. War; we enter the conflict and participate in the murder. The most limited way would be by giving weapons to one or more sides in the conflict; the most complete way would be a full invasion. Every other option between is still War.

            3. Aid; we lead the international community, starting today, in an effort to help Jordan, Turkey, et al, deal with the millions of people streaming out of Syria into refugee camps.

            I see almost no pundits talking about the moral consequences of 1 (ie, Rwanda) or even mentioning 3. Instead, it's all about war.

            War isn't the only option. But it's the only one anyone wants to talk about.

            Seriously, look how silent the media has gone since Obama's statement.

            •  4. Economic sanctions, 5. Arms embargo (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              middleagedhousewife, CenPhx

              Other options are exactly what we should be discussing, and when I say "we", I don't just mean people on this site.

              Why are we discussing bombs and missiles? When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. When you spend $700 billion a year on hammers, you really really really want to pound something.

              We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly.

              by dconrad on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 01:39:30 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Russia has blocked economic sanctions at the U ... (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                dconrad

                ... which is why they aren't happening. Same is true for the concept of an Arms embargo.

                My only suggestion is that perhaps if politically active people like us decided to talk about something other than war, we could show popular support for that other something.

                Like, what about helping Jordan and the UN make Zataari camp more liveable?

                •  I know these other options are difficult (0+ / 0-)

                  I don't know what we could do to get Russia on board. But we should try. Perhaps if we agreed to provide humanitarian aid, we could get Russia to agree to sanctions on products other than food and medicine?

                  We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly.

                  by dconrad on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 02:09:05 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  It's too late ... (0+ / 0-)

                    ... at this point. Perhaps it's still possible, but this is the second year of the civil war, and it's probably going to go on for a long time.

                    Russia has no desire to do anything against the Syrian regime; this is the problem the State Department has had since 2011 (when the war started).

            •  Again, it's not "war", it's a strike. There is a (0+ / 0-)

              difference, despite what many here are saying.

              It's military, it's violent, and it will kill people.  But it's not "war" unless it has duration.  Imo.

              •  It's an act of war (0+ / 0-)

                And it has duration, unless the duration is zero.

                We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly.

                by dconrad on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 02:09:45 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  Turn it around (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                dconrad

                So, by your reasoning if Mexico - a state actor - fired a single barrage of missles at a Texas military base to protest ([insert treatment of immigrant]), we should regard that as a strike and not an act of war? Was Pearl Harbor just a "strike"?

                •  No those would be "acts of war" too, like this (0+ / 0-)

                  strike would be.  I'm not saying this won't be aggressive, violent, etc, just that it hopefully will be a day or two and then over.  The cases you mentioned would be war-starting acts as well, but apparently nobody wants this one to be like that.

                  Don't want to parse this too finely, it's still an attack/act of war.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site