Skip to main content

View Diary: Say no to war with Syria - demand debate before any military action (284 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  All good questions (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    melfunction

    to which I don't have answers.  Does any of this change the moral duty to attempt to prevent slaughter where we can or help where we can?

    •  First do no harm. n/t (12+ / 0-)

      -7.38, -5.38 (that's a surprise)

      Why must we struggle to protect the accomplishments of Democrats of the past from Democrats of the present? -- cal2010

      by 84thProblem on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 06:52:36 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  no kidding! (11+ / 0-)

        i really have to wonder about this 'moral duty' stuff.

        since when are we a moral country? in my five and a half decades all i've ever seen is destructive fake moralism masking sinister ulterior motives.

        the best thing we can do for all parties is to keep our clumsy mitts out of this situation.

         the only thing we that would happen is we'd spend a bunch of money we don't have creating more havoc than anyone needs and then we lose no matter which side wins their civil war.

         then afterwards we'd have a bunch more people who hate us for blowing up their friends, family & country and maybe decide to retaliate against us.

        and round and round we go.

        what a great plan.

        Yesterday is History, Tomorrow is a Mystery. Today is a gift and that's why it's called "The Present".

        by elkhunter on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 09:20:11 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  And now you have drawn the ... (11+ / 0-)

      ... connection with Iraq that you asked for, where it was argued in advance that we were both helping where we could and preventing the risk of slaughter posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.

      Which many people accepted based on government assurances that they were there.

      And which was then used as the pretext to attack before UN inspections had a chance to be completed to receive third party confirmation of the government's claims.

      Which raises the questions ~ given how well that turned out, should we "attempt to prevent slaughter" where we know for sure that it is entirely uncertain whether we will be able to do so within the limits we have placed on the engagement, and where it is entirely uncertain whether we will do more good than harm.

      Support Lesbian Creative Works with Yuri anime and manga from ALC Publishing

      by BruceMcF on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 07:04:01 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Nope. In Iraq that (0+ / 0-)

        wasnt currently taking place.  We were speculating that it could take place.  Entirely different.  I guess I'm sensitive to all this because I'm ethnically Jewish and well, the holocaust.  I think we have a duty to intervene when these sorts of slaughters are taking place.

        •  Syria is not a genocide (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          lunachickie, caul, frostbite

          and it doesn't appear to be trending that way. These gas attacks are targeting militants with the collateral damage that goes with that. It's still horrible but it isn't close to genocide. thank god.

          If debt were a moral issue then, lacking morals, corporations could never be in debt.

          by AoT on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 09:15:15 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  That's a difference without a distinction. (4+ / 0-)

          In one we have claims unsupported by third party verification that Iraq was working on chemical (and nukular) weapons.

          In the other, we have claims unsupported by third party verification that we know how used chemical weapons.

          In either case, we have official claims without third party verification regarding the justification for engaging in an attack, and pleas to trust the official sources of the claims.

          The difference, however, is that at least in Iraq we knew that we were going in without sufficient force to bring the claimed weapons of mass destruction development programs to a halt.

          Here, we are being promised up front that the action will not be sufficient force to bring the Syrian government's use of chemical weapons to a halt, even if it is credibly established by third party verification that the Syrian government was in fact the perpetrator of these attacks.

          Support Lesbian Creative Works with Yuri anime and manga from ALC Publishing

          by BruceMcF on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 09:18:35 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  On "doing something" (14+ / 0-)

      As the pope and the King of Jordan just said the other day, diplomacy is the only way forward for a resolution. Shooting missiles is not.

      The U.S. can do "something" by upping humanitarian assistance. There is a grave refugee crisis--the number of children just passed a million. Rather than give money to Raytheon, give it to MSF, the Syrian Red Cross, and the UN agencies working with refugees which need money for food, shelter, and education.

    •  moral duty (3+ / 0-)

      by this point in time i believe the US has lost all legitimacy to act as a moral compass for the rest of the world.

      i believe your moral duty is to clean up your own dirty house.  if you're so concerned about children, stop it with the drone attacks, which kill innocent children all the damn time.  hold your president's feet to the fire over that.

      if you want to do something in syria, use your power, influence, and air force to drop field treatments for sarin gas all over syria, so some people have a chance to survive further chemical attacks, whether they are initiated by the government or cold-blooded rebel factions who want to draw the US into the syrian civil war.  i'd bet that that would win hearts and minds at an unprecedented rate.  and it would, you know, not kill any more people in order to "save" them.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site